IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3480 of 2006 Balram Prasad Yadav, S/o Ramnarayan Yadav, Reader, Chemistry Department, Devchand College, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. ……….Petitioners. Versus 1. B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur though its Vice Chancellor. 2. The Vice Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. Sri Ramanuj Prasad Singh, Professor in college, of Devchand College, Hajipur, Vaishali. ………….Respondents. ----------- 6/ 14.10.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel representing B.R.A. Bihar University is present. The prayer of the petitioner is for directing the respondents to quash the notification contained in Memo No. B/2278 and Memo No. B/2279 dated 28th November, 2005 issued by the Registrar, B.R.A., Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, whereby respondent No. 4 Sri Ramanuj Prasad Singh has been appointed as Professor-in-Charge. Petitioner has also prayed for direction to correct the date of absorption/regularization of his service from 05.09.1977 instead of 01.06.1979 thus to make necessary correction in the notification contained in Memo No. B/26-78 dated 30.08.1991. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Chemistry against first sanctioned post on temporary basis in D.C. College, Hajipur vide Letter No. 47AC/77 dated 01.09.1977. His appointment was confirmed by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.11.1977 vide item 2 No. 8 and it was decided to take concurrence of the University Service Commission for temporary appointment of petitioner and respondent No. 4. Petitioner has claimed to his seniority over respondent No. 4 on the ground that in the recommendation letter his name was above the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, when the post was advertised by the Secretary of D.C. College, Hajipur for appointment on 16.05.1979 both petitioner and respondent No. 4 applied for it. They were interviewed and the Governing Body following the procedure for appointment, allow the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to continue on the post. The concurrence of the University Service Commission was also given to the appointment of petitioner and respondent No. 4 vide Letter dated 25.09.1980 in which also name of petitioner is above the respondent No.4. On the basis of petitioners name being above respondent No. 4 in the concurrence letter as well as the recommendation letter he is claiming seniority to respondent No. 4 and also correction in the date of absorption/regularization. Petitioner’s grievance is that since he is senior to respondent No. 4, as such, he should have been made Professor-in-Charge instead of respondent No.4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur where it has been stated that respondent No. 4 was permanently absorbed on the recommendation of the Absorption Committee and that was assented by the Hon’ble Chancellor as Lecturer in Botany, D.C. 3 College, Hajipur. Subsequently, he was promoted as Reader on recommendation of Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service commission with effect from 01.06.1988 on the basis of degree affiliation with effect from 01.06.1978 Session. On the other hand, the petitioner on the recommendation of the Absorption Committee was absorbed with effect from 01.06.1979 as Lecturer in department of Chemistry and subsequently, on the recommendation of Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission he was promoted as Reader with effect from 01.06.1989. The petitioner’s absorption as Lecturer and promotion as Reader, both were subsequent to respondent No. 4. As such petitioner cannot claim his seniority over respondent No. 4. It has also been stated that the absorption and promotion both were given to the petitioner and respondent No. 4, for more than 14 years back and after lapse of more than 14 years these orders are being as such by way of filing of this writ application which cannot be entertained. Considering the statements made in the counter affidavit, to which there is not denial by the petitioner, there is no merit in the writ application. This writ application is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)