IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1326 of 2007 Ram Bhajjo Mandal, son of Sri Suraj Mandal, resident of Village Khankita, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar through its Registrar, having his Head Quarter at Pussa, Samastipur. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa, District Samastipur. 3. The Controller, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Director (Administration), Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, District Samastipur. 5. The Principal, Bihar Agriculture College, Farm, Sabour, District Bhagalpur. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Rajendra Agriculture University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to appointment (regularize) the service of the petitioner as eligible under the criteria laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 18.2.1998 passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 18594/1994 and further direction to the respondent-University to declare the result of the candidates who are working for more than 15 years and interviewed in the year 2006 and otherwise eligible under the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme 2 Court in view of petitioner has been working as casual labourer in the Bihar Agriculture Farm, Sabour since 1981 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order to regularize the service of casual labourers in the manner given in common order passed on 18.2.1998 in different Special Leave Petition and for other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled.” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 18594 of 1994 and its analogous cases disposed of on 18.2.1998, the petitioner had submitted his application for being appointed on the post of Pasu Sevak, Peon and Kamdar and has also appeared in the selection process i.e. interview but, curiously enough, his case was left out both in the 35% quota as also 65% quota and juniors to him including Pramod Sharma, Birendra Prasad, Kameshwar Yadav, Daulat Ram, Singheshwar Yadav, Sri Prasad were absorbed/regularized by the University vide order dated 20.12.1998. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, however, had expected that his case will be considered and as such, 3 when the fresh advertisement was issued on 25.4.2006, the petitioner had filed his application, whereafter, he was called for interview but, then, no decision has been taken even in respect of that selection process. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the direction may be given to the University to re-consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Supreme Court order and/or the fresh process of selection undertaken by the University in terms of the advertisement dated 25.4.2006. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the University but, that is of no avail, inasmuch as, an specific assertion of the petitioner made in paragraph no.11 as with regard to the persons being junior to the petitioner, as named above, and still being favoured with appointment, has not been explained, muchless, controverted. The counter affidavit is mere in form of an editorial, wherein, the respondents have avoided to disclose necessary details relating to the petitioner by stating only the obvious. It, therefore, does not become 4 clear as to whether the petitioner, in the first lot of selection and appointment pursuant to the order of the Apex Court, was correctly considered and his selection was not made only because persons, superior to him in merit, were selected. Let it be noted that the import of the Supreme Court order was only to give protection to the working employees by giving preference/weightage of their past services and, therefore, every person, having longer span of service, could have a legitimate expectation of being selected and appointed in preference to persons who were junior on the basis of their engagement as daily wage/casual employees. In such case, therefore, if, apart from the weightage, other considerations such as qualification or assessment of merit and suitability in the interview, had weighed in favour of any of the juniors to the petitioner being selected, that by itself may be a valid explanation for ignoring the so-called seniors including the petitioner but, then, whenever such decision is assailed in a Court of law the University 5 is expected to atleast bring entire facts on record with supporting documents. It is true that the petitioner also did not challenge the order dated 20.12.1998 by which his alleged juniors were appointed and the present writ application was filed after more than eight years only on 1.2.2007 and that too without impleading such juniors named in paragraph no.11 as party to the writ application but, that alone cannot be a ground for non-suiting the petitioner inasmuch as, the respondent themselves have admitted that pursuant to the second advertisement, the matter relating to the petitioner is still under consideration. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the University to consider the case of the petitioner with others strictly in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.2.1998 will not be given effect to in any advertisement including the present one, inasmuch as, that order was confined only to one time exercise and that has already been 6 given effect to in the year 1998 in the case of the petitioner and others. The direct recruitment, as sought to be made by advertisement, therefore, has to follow the principles of equal opportunity to all without giving any weightage to any person only on the basis of past experience of service. Any order passed by the Vice- Chancellor contrary to the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution envisaging appointment of temporary employee by giving them weightage in direct recruitment cannot stand the test of scrutiny Right to equality of opportunity in matter of public employment and, at least, this Court cannot become party in allowing such practice to continue and, therefore, it is hereby directed that consideration of all the persons who are applicants in terms of the advertisement dated 25.4.2006 must be judged on the parameters of the terms of the advertisement and only if the advertisement contains any such provision for giving weightage of preference to the working 7 employees, the same can be made basis for this transaction but, if there is no such provision made in the advertisement, the University must follow the process of selection strictly on merit only by giving relaxation in age to the casual/daily rated employees of the University. This Court must also note of one more plea of the respondent University in the counter affidavit, wherein, it has been suggested that now the jurisdiction of the Rajendra Agriculture University has been bifurcated and a new University has been created and therefore, the posts, which have not been filled up pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.04.2006, may not be filled up till a final decision is taken by the State Government as with regard to the allocation of post. Since the petitioner is claiming appointment on Class-IV post and the Class-IV post have their sanctioned strength against the particular college, the University, Rajendra Agriculture University will be well in a position to ascertain the vacancy in the colleges, which still continue 8 within its jurisdiction and after re- assessment of such vacancy, it can still proceed to fill up the post so advertised by the advertisement dated 25.4.2006, leaving the post meant for the colleges/faculties which now have fallen within the jurisdiction of the newly created University at Sabour. Having clarified the aforementioned aspect, this Court would direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the case of the petitioner and similarly situated persons within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)