IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16736 of 2007 1. MD.NIZAMUDDIN, son of late Md. Taiyab Ali, resident of village- Purbi Gharari, Kharik Bazar, PS.- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur, at present post as Lab-in-charge Zoology dept. 2. Sharda Nand Mishra s/o Late Madan Mohan Mishra, resident of village- Jank Singh Road, Naugachia District- Bhagalpur, at present posted as Lab- in-Charge chemistry, Dept. Both petitioners are posted as in G. B. College Naugachia, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSity, Bhagalpur through its Registrar, Dist- Bhagalpur. 2. Vice Chancellor of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 3. The Registrar of Tilka Manjhi, Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 4. The Principal of G. B. College, Naugachia, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. … Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv. : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Adv. For the University : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv. 2.. 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows;- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for direction to respondents for considering redesignation on the post of Demonstrator in pursuance of the letter dated 14.6.06 issued under signature Additional Secretary Human Resources Development (Higher Education) Department Bihar, Patna with effect from the date of absorption on the post of Lab Incharge or similarly situated 2 persons and junior to the petitioners have been granted and further issue direction to grant monitory benefit on the post of Demonstrator and further give other legal consequential benefit attached to the post.” Counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the issue stands settled by the Apex Court as with regard to the redesignation of the Laboratory Assistant on the post of Demonstrator, the delay in implementing such decision in the case of the petitioner is absolutely not appreciable. For this purpose he has also referred to various orders contained in Annexure-7 series to show that earlier the University had redesignated the several other Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Incharge on the post of Demonstrator by orders dated 29.1.2006. He has claimed that since the petitioners were not given such identical benefits they had also filed their representations before the Vice-Chancellor of the University, but the same has also not been disposed till date. Counsel for the University is not in a position to assist this Court in any manner and his limited submission is that since the representation of the petitioners is still pending, a direction may be given for disposal of such 3 representation. In the opinion of this Court such submission has been made only because counsel for the University has not filed his counter affidavit. This writ application was filed on 18.12.2007 and a period of nearly three years has not been good enough for the University to take the stand clear by filing a counter affidavit. This Court really deprecates such evasive and negligent attitude of the authorities of the University which infact is primarily responsible for generating litigation. The authorities of the University both by not disposing of the representation filed by its employees including the petitioners and again not filing the counter affidavit when such issue is raised by the concerned employee in this Court, are guilty of causing impediment in dispensation of justice. Be that as it may, this Court would direct the respondent no. 2, the Vice-Chancellor of the University to look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order on the representation filed by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-7 dated 5.12.2006. In order to expedite the matter the petitioners are also given liberty to file a fresh copy of their aforesaid 4 representation along with a copy of this order whereafter the Vice Chancellor of the University must pass his reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of its receipt in his office. It is, however, made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioners and has simply remitted the matter back to the Vice-Chancellor to do the needful in accordance with law in the light of the order of the Apex Court, and the earlier order of the University dated 29.1.2006. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)