MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first writ petition ,originally, there were four writ petitioners. One of them was regularized and the other two have instructed the learned counsel not to press their applications. Thus we are left only with the first petitioner- Mukesh Kumar Singh . In the second writ petition, there is only one petitioner. The petitioners claim regularization of their services in Raj Narayan College , Hajipur(Vaishali), which is a constituent College of the B. R. Ambedakar Bihar University. Counter affidavits of the State and the University are on the records with their replies . Heard the parties.

(2.) It appears that the College was established in the year 1952 and got its affiliation up to Intermediate standard in Arts in 1956 . In 1956 it got affiliation up to degree level in Arts. Similarly it got affiliation up to Intermediate level in Science in 1957 and up to degree level in 1961. On 1.4.1975, the State Government took a decision to take over this College as a constituent College of the Bihar University, then in existence. On 8.2.1976, the College was made a constituent College of the B.R. Ambedakar ,Bihar University. The College having been made constituent College, the Inter University Board settled the Staffing Pattern of the College on 14.1.1980 .The University accordingly informed the College by its communication dated 30.9.1980 informing the College about the staffing pattern as duly prepared by the Inter University Board and approved by the State Government and the University .With reference to Staffing Pattern, as approved, it would be seen that the post which is now occupied by the petitioner, remaining two petitioners were duly mentioned in the Staffing Pattern. It is not disputed by the University rather admitted that in case of the two remaining petitioners, the Principal of the College made an advertisement seeking appointment to various posts , pursuant to which the petitioners made applications and were duly selected and were appointed in the year 1982. In 1985, the College made a recommendation to the University for regularization of, inter alia, the two petitioners, which the University after scrutinizing and being satisfied ,forwarded to the State. Thus seen it is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to public advertisement and scrutinized by the College as against the posts available as per Staffing Pattern. Both the petitioners were eligible for appointment as per University statutes. The University had recommended their cases for regularization. The matter being pending before the State Government and the State Government taking a decision in the matter, petitioner filed his writ application in the year 1998 for their regularization . During the pendency of the writ petition, vide letter dated 18.9.1999, the State turned down the request of regularization of the petitioners on the ground that they were not duly appointed. In what manner State considered their appointments not in accordance with law was not stated therein.

(3.) Petitioners again reiterated that the process was duly followed and it is because of that the university had recommended for their regularization. It is not in dispute that once again in 2006, the University re-examined the matter and taking notes of decision of this Court, recommended the matter for re-consideration before the State where it is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner in the second writ petition has retired. Learned counsel for the State submits that the university has been seeking sanction of the posts on which the petitioners are claiming to be appointed but till date the State has not sanctioned those posts. That being the position, the appointments of the petitioners on unsanctioned posts cannot be taken cognizance of and accordingly cannot be regularized. Learned counsel for the university fairly concedes that as per Staff Pattern fixed by the Inter University Board and approved by the State and the University, posts on which the petitioners were recruited had been duly noticed under the Staffing Pattern long before their appointments. Their appointments having been made pursuant to advertisement by the Principal of the constituent College is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh & ors vs. The State of Bihar & ors. Since reported in 1997 (1)PLJR 509, being the judgment of Full Bench of this Court wherein a similar question had arisen.