CHANDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel, in the second case, states that petitioner No 1 died in harness. His heirs have been sought to be brought on record by I A No 7716 of 2010. Heard the parties. I A No 7716 of 2010 is allowed. Let the heirs, as mentioned in para-2 of the interlocutory application be treated as substituted petitioners in place of petitioner No 1.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had come to this Court with the prayer for being regularised and recognized as Lecturers duly appointed on the second post in their respective subjects. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, in both the cases separately, University has accepted that the petitioners are on deemed second post duly appointed in their respective subjects.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the decision having been taken, petitioners are to be paid accordingly except petitioner No 3 in the second writ petition and they have also been promoted to the post of Readers as well by the University. Thus, he submits that for all intents and purposes, except payment in accordance with the promotions/appointments, the writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the State states that it is a matter essentially between the petitioners, University and the Chancellor and if the University has now chosen to give the benefit to the petitioners, the State has little role to play in the matter at present. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to keep the writ petitions pending any further.