STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BAIDYANATH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the manner in which the State desires the order on C.W.J.C. No. 12502 of 1993, Baidyanath v. Patna University, to be challenged the record does not reflect well on public accountability either of the State Government or the Patna University. While the Court has heard learned Counsel for the State of Bihar and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appearance on behalf of the University was conspicuous by its absence. The issue in the writ petition plainly is whether the petitioners were entitled to two time bound promotions. The issue was allot settled when, the Secretary, Higher Education appeared before the Court on 17th July 1995 and an order of that date recorded on an undertaking of the Secretary, Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education, State of Bihar reads: "Mr. K.C. Saha, Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education of the State of Bihar is present in Court, He submits that in principle, the State is committed to allow first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion in favour of the University's employees, for which already agreement has been signed, but certain time will be taken by the respondent-State of issuance of the proper notification relating to such grant of first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion. He prays for one months time to come out with such notification of first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion with respect to the University's employees."

(2.) IF this is not all then to give more confidence tot he parties, on 23 August 1995 the Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar. The Advocate General fortifies the commitment given by the Secretary, Higher Education and has the following statement recorded. "Mr. Advocate General, Bihar prays for one month's time to act in terms with the statements made by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar on 17th July, 1995."

(3.) THE stand of the State Government is that the University took upon itself to provide these benefits and it did not have the power to do so. THE record is sufficiently clear to show that at some stage part of the benefits had been provided by the University and this is apparently witnessed by a notification dated 20 February, 1991 (Annexure 4) and notification dated 29 August 1989 (Annexure 5) to the writ petition. THEse are matters of record and have not been denied by any of the respondents.