IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14828 of 2004 Uday Kant Jha, son of Late Baleshwar Jha, village Bina Babhangama, PS and District Supaul – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura through its Registrar. 2) The Vice Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 3) The Registrar, B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 4) The Principal, B.S.S. College, Supaul 5) Sri Vishundeo Kamat, deputed in Examination Department, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura through the Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura – Respondents. … For the petitioner : Mr. Gayanand Roy and Mr. Sheonandan Mishra, Advocates. For the University : Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For respondent no.5 : Mr. Chakradhari Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. 6 17-1-2011 This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 28.9.2002 (Annexure 1) by which the Vice Chancellor has promoted respondent no. 5 as a Head Clerk in B.S.S. College, Supaul under B. N. Mandal University. The admitted facts are that the petitioner joined as an Assistant in the college on 4.10.1972 whereas respondent no. 5 joined the service on 18.7.1981. It is said that a notice was issued by the college inviting the Assistants working in the college to submit their applications for being posted as Head Clerk. The case of respondent no.5 is that he was the only person who had filed an application for grant of such promotion, whereas the petitioner’s case is that he had responded to the notice by filing an application on 12.1.2002. The University has denied that an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 12.1.2002 and has taken a stand that since respondent no.5 was the only applicant on the post, he was given the benefit of being appointed as a Head Clerk in the college. I may point out here that there is no financial benefit attached to the post. The fact remains 2 that it is admitted that the petitioner was senior to respondent no.5. This court finds that there is no need or justification for the college to invite applications for making an appointment on the post of a Head Clerk, considering the fact that it is usually the senior most person who is appointed as Head Clerk, unless he is otherwise found unfit for posting as a Head Clerk. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submits that the petitioner by virtue of his statement that he had responded to the notice seeking appointment for posting as a Head Clerk, has misled this court by making such a statement, when it is clearly denied by the University and as such he has not come with clean hands, and that on this ground alone this writ petition should be dismissed. On perusal of the writ petition it appears that after retirement of the Head Clerk the petitioner on 25.1.2002 was asked to perform the duty of the Head Clerk and he joined on the said post as Incharge Head Clerk. Annexure 10 is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that he is senior most person and has the required qualification and, therefore, he should be considered for the post of Head Clerk. The said application was filed on 6.2.2002 and forwarded on 31.7.2002 by the Principal of the college. The University has taken a stand that the document is back dated without really giving any reason for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. The petitioner after appointment filed a representation and submitted before the authorities of the college and the University that he was senior most person in the cadre of Assistant and, therefore, he ought to have been given promotion. A stand has also been taken by the University that 3 the petitioner was not able to show that he had worked in the General Section and was mostly posted in the Accounts Section of the college. I do not think this is a criterion for consideration for appointment as a Head Clerk. The fact that the college itself considered the petitioner as senior most person and was made Incharge Head Clerk is sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that at that time petitioner was senior to respondent no. 5 and was given the responsibility of working as a Head Clerk. I may also state here that the petitioner is still working as a Head Clerk in the office and is about to retire in a month’s time. Respondent no.5 in the mean time has been posted in the university. Considering the fact that petitioner is senior most person and this court finds that there is no requirement of inviting applications for the post of Head Clerk, I find no justification for issuance of the order, dated 28.9.2002 contained in Annexure 1. The same is hereby quashed. This writ petition is allowed. However, the authorities of the college and the University are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of being appointed as a Head Clerk. In case the University / college decide to make the said appointment, it should be w.e.f. 28.9.2002 i.e. the date on which the vacancy was filled up. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)