IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7712 of 1997 1. Ram Prawesh Ram, Son of late Ramjee Ram, Resident of Village and Post Office Pandarak, Pipartar, Police Station Pandarak, District Patna. 2. Om Prakash, Son of late Kali Sao, Resident of Mohalla Dariapur, Kutubuddin Lane, Police Station Pirbahore, District Patna. ------ Petitioners Versus 1. The Patna University through its Registrar, Ashok Raj Path, Patna. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 4. Patna Training College, Patna through its Principal. 4(a) The Principal, Patna Training College, Dariapur, Patna-4. 5. Radhe Singh, Son of Chando Singh. 6. Babban Singh, Son of Raghunath Singh. Both working as Class IV employees in Patna Training College, Dariapur, Patna-4. ---------- Respondents ----------- 8 15.07.2010 Heard Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writs, orders or directions quashing office order contained in Memo no. 83-85/P.T.C. Dated 24.2.97 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of Principal, Patna Training College, Patna University, Patna by which the service of 2 petitioners have been terminated with effect from afternoon of 28.2.97 keeping in view the college fund because their appointment on daily wages was made against unsanctioned post and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioners after regularizing their services with all consequential benefits including backwages etc.” Mr. Singh, with regard to the aforementioned prayer, would only invite attention of this Court towards the fact that though the petitioners were daily wages employees and had no right to be absorbed in service or to continue in service for an indefinite period but then keeping in view that other similarly situated persons including respondent nos. 5 & 6 were subsequently absorbed in the university service, the removal of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 24.2.1997 being discriminatory must be held to be bad in law. From the perusal of the impugned order of termination of the petitioners, it however becomes clear that the Principal, Department of Education had appointed the 3 petitioners on daily wages on temporary basis on the post of Laboratory Attendant. Admittedly under the Patna University Act or Statutes framed thereunder, the principal had no such power to make an appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant, a Class-IV post in much the said power has been vested only in Vice Chancellor of Patna University. Moreover, in the order of termination, it has been mentioned that the post on which such appointment of the petitioner was made and continued on daily wages was unsanctioned post and thus due to paucity of fund, their continuation was no longer possible. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners, inasmuch as, if there was/is no sanctioned post for the continuation of the petitioners that by itself was a good ground for termination of their service. The plea of discrimination in fact also has to be only noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as, respondent nos. 5 & 6 were engaged on sanctioned post of Mali and 4 they had ultimately been also absorbed on the post of Mali. The Laboratory Attendant or any other Class-IV employee cannot seek any equivalence with the post of Mali. The question of parity or equality can only be sought amongst the same class of persons. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)