AKHILESHWAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dtd. 11/5/2016 passed by Justice S.B.Sinha (Retd.) Commission, New Delhi (herein after referred as 'Sinha Commission') on their respective Claim Petition Nos. 573 of 2013 (Akhileshwar Sharma), 576 of 2013 (Manoj Kumar Rajak) and 563 of 2019 (Manmohan Singh), submitted that the learned Justice Sinha Commission after adjudication of all the claims, which were conjointly heard and composite order is said to have been passed, in which Justice Sinha (Retd.) has categorically recorded its findings that there are 06 persons, who were appointed on 26/6/1985, and they are namely, Sri Rajeshwar Prasad, Sri Manoj Kumar Rajak (petitioner), Shri Akhileshwar Sharma, Sri Raj Kumar Prasad, Md. Abid Ansari & Sri Birendra Kumar, and similarly, two other persons have been appointed on 6/7/1985 namely, Petitioner No. 1 - Sri Akhileshwar Sharma & Petitioner No. 2 ? Sri Manmohan Singh. These 08 persons being senior, their cases may be considered first, whereafter only the cases of other eligible candidates to be considered in terms of their respective seniority, and it has further been directed that for the determination of inter se seniority, the University shall take into consideration, the guidelines issued by this Commission in the case of Assistants, and accordingly all the claim petitions were disposed of. It has further been submitted by the counsel that these petitioners have admittedly been receiving their salary since 1989, and even on query being made by the University from the College in question in 2014 itself, with regard to the status of vacancies, which was categorically responded by the Principal of Sri Guru Govind Singh College, Patna City vide letter dtd. 6/2/2019, that there are altogether 19 vacancies as against DRT Category.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court to the order dtd. 11/5/2016 passed by the Sinha Commission that the name of the Petitioner No. 3, who is represented by legal heirs of the petitioner found place at Serial No. 2, is said to have been appointed on 26/6/1985 but for no obvious reason, the name of all these petitioners were singled out by the State Government while directing absorption, wherein others who were appointed similarly and despite there being findings of absorption by Justice Sinha Commission, absorption was not directed by the State Government. This matter was heard at length on 8/9/2025, and this Court had passed the following orders, which is reproduced as under:-