IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13301 of 2011 DR.AMAR KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BIHARI SINGH, R/O M.I.G. 108, KANKERBAGH, P.S.- KANKERBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA ……….Petitioner Versus 1. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA ………….Respondents ----------- 2. 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, and learned counsel for the University, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Head of Department of Hindi in the Patna University, be considered. It appears that the said post will fall vacant in October, 2011 by reason of completion of tenure of three years of the present Head of the Department, Dr. Balram Tiwari. This court would ordinarily not be inclined to interfere on a mere apprehension of the petitioner that his case will not be considered even if he be eligible for the same, as there is always a presumption as to legality rather than of illegality. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has in fact been ignored in the past and persons admittedly junior to him have been appointed in his stead, as evident from Annexures-5 & 6. The fact of his seniority, as evident from the draft of seniority list of teachers as on 2 08.12.2008 (Annexure-9) as also the notification regarding re- constitution of Moderation Boards (Annexure-10). It is by reason of these instances that the petitioner harbours a reasonable apprehension that he may once again be ignored from being considered for appointment. Learned counsel for the University has referred to the statute relating to the scheme of headship by rotation as obtaining post-2008 amendment of the Patna University, Act. He submits that seniority per se is no longer the basis for the appointment and the selection has to be done by rotation from among the four seniormost persons. He submits that the amendment itself would become superfluous if the seniormost person were eligible for automatic appointment. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his only concern is to be considered for selection and by no means can he stake a claim for appointment on the basis of his seniority alone. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice and equity, the instant writ petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the University authorities airing his apprehensions in the matter, regard to which shall be had by the University at the time of taking a decision. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Fahad. (Vikash Jain, J.)