Patna High Court
Rajiva Narayan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 25 August, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4730 of 2020
======================================================
Rajiva Narayan Prasad Son of Shri Badri Narayan Prasad, Resident of Lah
Bazar, Chapra, Disrict-Saran, Pin-841301
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
4. Jai Prakash University, Chapra through its Registrar
5. Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.
6. Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Binita Singh (SC28)
For J.P. University : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
25-08-2025 Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Binita Singh, learned SC-28 and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the University.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a
prayer for grant of the following reliefs:
"(i) Issuance of a direction, order or
writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing letter dated 27/01/2018 bearing Letter
No. 100-LO issued by the Registrar of Jai
Prakash University, Chapra (hereinafter
referred to as "the University"), by which in
purported compliance of the directions
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
2/40
contained under the order dated 30/11/2017
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17252/2017 by this
Hon'ble Court, the claim of the petitioner for
revocation of suspension while treating his case
to be identical to that of one Dr Saroj Verma
and other similarly situated persons has been
rejected;
(ii) Issuance of a direction order or
writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing letter dated 05/01/2016 issued by the
Registrar of the University, by which the
petitioner has been placed under suspension:
(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or
writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the concerned respondent
authorities to take steps towards making
payment of all admissible dues in favour of the
petitioner after revoking his suspension,
including salary as well as subsistence
allowance that have remained unpaid since
May, 2015 and accordingly, post him in the
capacity of a Demonstrator in Physics in the
services of the University in accordance with
law;
(iv) Any other relief/reliefs that the
petitioner/petitioners may be found to be
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
3/40
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is presently under suspension and prior to
issuance of impugned order of suspension, he was posted and
discharging the duties in the capacity of a Demonstrator in the
Department of Physics at Rajendra College, Chapra which is a
constituent unit of University. It has next been submitted that
the order passed by the Principal of Rajendra College Chapra,
during the relevant time, it was a unit of erstwhile University of
Bihar, Muzaffarpur, and the petitioner was appointed against the
post of Computer Programmer-cum-Laboratory In-charge in the
P.G. Laboratory of Physics Department of the said College vide
letter dated 30.08.1988. Upon such posting, the petitioner
submitted his joining in the said capacity and started discharging
his duties in accordance with law. It is next submitted that the
petitioner was continuing in the services of the Rajendra
College, Chapra, vide an office order dated 17.11.1989, which
was issued by the concerned authorities under the erstwhile
University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur by which the engagement of
the petitioner at Rajendra College, Chapra was approved as a
daily wager. Pursuant to the issuance of the said office order
dated 17.11.1989, the petitioner continued to discharge his
duties in the services of Rajendra College, Chapra in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
4/40
with law to the satisfaction of all concerned. It has further been
submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had
been continuously discharging his duties in the aforesaid
college, and no action was taken for regularization of the
services while the petitioner was assigned several functions and
duties connected with the said Rajendra College, Chapra as well
as the University in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in the
Department of Physics at the College.
4. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has next
submitted that in the meantime in furtherance of the orders
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4215-
16/2002 with respect to redesignation of Laboratory In-
charge/Laboratory Technician/Laboratory Assistants as
Demonstrators, on the information sought for, by the concerned
authorities under the University with respect to persons working
against the post of Laboratory In-charge at Rajendra College,
Chapra, vide a letter dated 22/01/2007 written by the then
Professor In-charge of the College, the details with respect to
different persons working against the post of Laboratory In-
charge at the College were published and amongst other persons,
the name of the petitioner was also included in the said letter and as
such, the petitioner was shown to be working against the post
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
5/40
of Laboratory In-charge in the Department of Physics at
Rajendra College, Chapra. The persons including the petitioner
were working in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in the
services of the said college were requested to be redesignated as
Demonstrators vide letter dated 22.01.2007 appended with the
writ petition as Annexure-2.
5. The petitioner filed several representations before
the concerned authorities under the University as well as before
the Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities of Bihar for taking
necessary steps towards regularization of the services of the
petitioner in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in the
Department of Physics at the College. Pursuant to the
advertisement dated 10/05/2006 issued by the University
inviting applications from eligible candidates for consideration
of the cases for appointment against different class-III posts,
amongst other persons, the petitioner also participated in the
written examination and other connected tests in the year 2007
but the said process of selection was aborted midway and did
not reach any logical conclusion. But in the meantime, an office
order dated 10/12/2007 was issued by the concerned authorities
under the University, by which on the recommendation of the
pay fixation committee of the University, by the orders of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
6/40
Vice Chancellor of the University, the monthly salary of the
petitioner was fixed at Rs. 4000/- along with admissible D.A.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that several
correspondences were exchanged between the concerned
authorities under the Governor's Secretariat, Bihar & the
University as well as the State Government with respect to the
matter of regularization of the services of the petitioner. From
the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is apparent that by a
Notification dated 04/06/2010 bearing memo no. 815 (R) issued
by the University, pursuant to the orders of the Vice Chancellor
of the University, the services of the petitioner were regularized
in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in the Department of
Physics at the College and accordingly, in furtherance of the
decision of the State Government as communicated vide a letter
dated 14/06/2006 bearing Letter No. 1115, the petitioner was
redesignated as a Demonstrator in Physics working at the
College in the services of the University. It is submitted here
that in the manner as aforesaid, on the basis of due deliberations
and consideration of the case of the petitioner, by the aforesaid
notification dated 04/06/2010 bearing Memo No.- 815(R) issued
by the University, the services of the petitioner were regularized
in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in Physics at the College
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
7/40
in accordance with law.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that
in the meantime, the matter with respect to redesignation of
different persons working as Laboratory In-charge in the
services of the University as Demonstrators was placed before
the promotion committee of the University during its meeting
held on 21/08/2010, which also included the aforesaid
notification dated 04/06/2010 bearing Memo No.-815 (R), by
which the services of the petitioner has been regularized and he
has been redesignated as Demonstrator in Physics in the
services of the University, as such, having taken note of the
various aspects of the matter, the Promotion Committee of the
University duly approved the said decision of the University
which would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting of the
Promotion Committee of the University dated 21.08.2010 as
appended with the writ petition vide Annexure-5.
8. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
subsequently, by a letter dated 04/08/2011 issued by the
concerned authorities under the University, necessary
information, inter alia, with respect to issuance of the aforesaid
notification dated 04/06/2010 bearing Memo No.- 815 (R) was
furnished to the concerned authorities under the then Human
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
8/40
Resource Development Department of the State Government.
9. It is submitted that the manner in which the entire
sequence of event has taken place, it establishes beyond all
reasonable doubts that pursuant to the decision taken by the
concerned authorities under the University, petitioner's services
in the capacity of Laboratory In-charge in Physics at the College
were regularized and in furtherance of the directives issued by
the concerned authorities under the State Government by the
aforesaid letter dated 14/06/2006 bearing Letter No.-1115,
amongst other persons, the petitioner was redesignated as a
Demonstrator in Physics in the services of the University and as
such, the same did not suffer from any infirmity. It is further the
case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 28/11/2011 issued by
the concerned authorities under the then Human Resource
Development Department of the State Government, the
concerned authorities under the University were directed to
furnish explanation with respect to the manner in which two
persons namely, Smt. Sudha Mehta working against the post of
Storekeeper and Shri Harihar Mohan working as an Assistant in
the Department of Zoology at Rajendra College, Chapra had
been absorbed/posted on the post of Demonstrator, against
which, no query whatsoever had ever been asked/raised by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
9/40
concerned authorities under the State Government and similarly
in relation to the matter of absorption and redesignation of the
petitioner in the capacity of Demonstrator in Physics at the said
college and as such, the same establishes beyond all reasonable
doubts that even the concerned authorities under the Education
Department of the State Government had conveyed their tacit
approval in relation to the matter of the absorption and
redesignation of the present petitioner as Demonstrator.
10. In response to a Letter dated 27/01/2012 issued
from the University, the Principal of the College by his letter
dated 24/02/2012 sent description of the persons working
against the post of Laboratory Assistants in different subjects at
the College and amongst other persons which would show that
the name of the petitioner also found place in the said letter and
it is in this background, the pay fixation chart was prepared by
the concerned authorities under the University, by which,
amongst other persons, the present petitioner was also extended
the benefits of revision of his salary, while working in the
capacity of Demonstrator at the College.
11. Learned Senior counsel has further submitted by
referring to the details of expenditure for the University for the
financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 issued by the concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
10/40
authorities under the Education Department of the State
Government to show that the post of Demonstrator against
which the present petitioners had been working in the
Department of Physics at the College, had been duly recognized
by the concerned authorities under the State Government and
accordingly, necessary funds had also been allotted in favour of
the University for making payment of salary against the said
posts and the chart containing details of expenditure for the
University has also been appended as Annexure-10 Series to this
writ petition.
12. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted
that for the financial year 2011-12 in relation to different
employees working at the College and amongst other persons,
the name of the petitioner also finds place in the said chart
containing the budget of the University, which also establishes
the fact that the services were regularized and his redesignation
as Demonstrator in the Department of Physics at the College
was not under dispute.
13. The decision taken by the Statutory Pay Fixation
Committee of the University, by a notification dated 10/10/2013
issued by the University, amongst other persons, the fixation of
the salary of the petitioner was also approved, which goes to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
11/40
show that the petitioner continued to discharge the duty in the
capacity of Demonstrator in Physics in the services of the
University and to support his contention the notification dated
10/10/2013
has been annexed as Annexure-12 to this writ
petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to
S.L.P. No. 9234-9237 of 2014 having been filed before the
Hon'ble Apex Court against an order and judgment dated
06/01/2014 passed in one C.W.J.C. No. 7644/2013 and other
analogous cases in relation to the matter of status of
redesignated Demonstrators working in the services of different
universities within the State of Bihar and the petitioner having
been redesignated as Demonstrator in the Department of Physics
in the services of the University also filed one intervention
application before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said S.L.P. and
the said intervention application was allowed. Upon intervention
application having been allowed and the intimation to this effect
have been placed before the authorities concerned, requesting
them not to revert back the persons redesignated as
demonstrator from the post that they were occupying was
considered by the authority, owing to the matter being sub-
judice before Hon'ble Apex Court for further deliberations.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
15. It is the submission of the Senior Counsel that a
detailed enquiry with respect to various aspects relating to the
services of the present petitioner was carried out by the
aforesaid committee constituted by the University vide its letter
dated 25/03/2014 bearing letter No.- 5037(R) as mentioned
above and on detailed examination of the various aspects
relating to the case of the present petitioner, the aforesaid
committee submitted its report on 25/11/2014 categorically
recommending that the salary of the petitioner and another
person to be fixed afresh in the pay scale in which their services
had been utilized, which would be apparent from the enquiry
report dated 25/11/2014 as appended as Annexure-16 to this writ
petition.
16. It has next been submitted that during the
meeting of the Finance Committee of the University held on
07/01/2015, inter alia, by agenda no. 6, proposal for making
payment of salary in favour of the petitioner and another person
was duly approved by the Finance Committee of the University.
17. The said minutes of the meeting of the Finance
Committee of the University dated 07/01/2015 has also been
annexed as Annexure-17 to this writ petition.
18. From the records, it also appears from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
meeting of the Syndicate of the University held on 15/09/2015,
inter alia, by agenda no. 3, the decision taken by the finance
committee of the University during its meeting held on
07/01/2015 as indicated above was duly approved by the
Syndicate and furthermore, the report submitted by the
committee constituted by the University in relation to the
matters of payment of salary in favour of the petitioner and
other person was also approved by the Syndicate, which leaves
no doubt that the petitioners continuance in the capacity of the
redesignated Demonstrator at Rajendra College, Chapra suffers
from any infirmity.
19. It has next been submitted that while continuing
in the capacity of Demonstrator in Physics at Rajendra College,
Chapra, from time to time, the petitioner had also been deputed
under the University to discharge certain functions and vide a
letter dated 30/05/2014 issued by the University, the petitioner
was appointed to act as the Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of
the University in addition to the responsibilities of
administration of computer-related issues and development of
the website of the University. The petitioner also served as
Secretary to the then Vice Chancellor of the University on
deputation and due to certain controversies cropped up with
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
respect to the matters pertaining to purchase of answer sheets
for the purposes of conducting examinations, the then Vice
Chancellor of the University was removed and the Pro-Vice
Chancellor of the University working during the relevant time
was given the charge of the office of the Vice Chancellor of the
University, following which, a letter dated 28/12/2015 was
issued by the Registrar of the University, by which along with
another person, the petitioner was directed to submit his
explanations with respect to the allegations of his involvement
in the matter of handling the file pertaining to purchase of the
answer sheets. While asking an explanation no documents in
support of the allegations had been provided to the petitioner,
Still, the petitioner upon receipt of the letter dated 28.12.2015
submitted his explanation refuting the charges levelled against
him and sought to demonstrate that the petitioner had worked in
the capacity of the Secretary to the earlier Vice Chancellor of
the University upon his deputation and not in the capacity of
Personal Assistant and accordingly requested to accept his
explanation and exonerate him of the charges levelled against
him.
20. It has been informed that the First Information
Report was instituted against the former Vice Chancellor,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
Registrar, an Assistant and the present petitioner and in the said
F.I.R., the petitioner was shown to be working in the capacity of
an Assistant and subsequently the petitioner was put under
suspension by the University vide impugned letter dated
05/01/2016 and his headquarters during the period of suspension
were fixed at Jaglal Choudhary College, Chapra. The petitioner
was granted Anticipatory bail in connection with FIR bearing
Chapra Mufassil PS Case No. 346 of 2015 lodged in relation to
the allegations of purchase of answer sheets for conducting
examination and accordingly granted bail vide an order dated
22.07.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc No. 15924
of 2016.
21. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn
attention of this Court towards the provision as incorporated
under the Article 10 of the Service Statutes prescribing that the
suspension period of a University servant should not to exceed
one year from the date of suspension except in circumstances
beyond the control of the University and as such, the suspension
of the petitioner being clearly in violation of the Service
Statutes, the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks
revocation in view of the fact that after expiry of the one year
period, the same should have been revoked by the authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
themselves but unfortunately, no action is taken.
22. It is the case of the petitioner that despite
petitioner having worked continuously and having discharged
his duties in the services of the University from the month of
May, 2015, had not received any payment of salary. After the
issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 05/01/2016, by which the
petitioner had been placed under suspension and even no
subsistence allowance was also paid in his favour.
23. Because of the inaction of the respondents, the
petitioner was constrained to move this Hon'ble Court by filing
CWJC No. 17252 of 2017 with a prayer to revoke the
suspension of the petitioner and the said application was
disposed of by order/judgment dated 30.11.2017 by which,
taking note of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor of
University by which suspension of other similarly situated
persons had been revoked, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to
direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to examine the case
of the petitioner and if found to be identical to the case of one
Dr. Saroj Kumar Verma and others, the Vice Chancellor was
directed pass an order in light of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Chancellor within the stipulated period, for which a
representation dated 14.12.2017 was submitted with a copy of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition but instead taking
action with regard to revocation of suspension, the petitioner
was directed to submit certain details pertaining to his initial
appointment for which a letter dated 08.01.2018 was issued
which has been appended with this writ petition as Annexure-
26.
24. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
upon receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 08.01.2018 seeking
details pertaining to his initial appointment, the petitioner by a
letter dated 16.01.2018 furnished necessary orders passed by the
University in relation to the matter of regularization of the
services of the University on the basis of the decision taken by
the Senate/Syndicate of the University as well as on the basis of
the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee constituted by
the University. The request of the petitioner before the
concerned authorities to allow him to submit his joining, was
not allowed and the petitioner was stopped from marking his
attendance at the headquarters fixed by the University during
period of suspension.
25. Unfortunately, at a subsequent stage, vide letter
dated 27.01.2018, the University finding that the case of the
petitioner was not identical of the case of Dr. Saroj Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
Verma & Ors, rejected the claim of the petitioner.
26. It has next been submitted that when no action
was taken by the concerned respondents-authorities/University
with regard to revocation of suspension and further for payment
of subsistence allowance, the petitioner submitted representation
dated 18.12.2018 but no action was taken despite Governor's
Secretariat, Bihar vide Letter dated 14.03.2019 having directed
the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the
representation.
27. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has
also filed counter affidavit and has taken a stand under
paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 which are as follows: -
"7. That it is relevant to mention here
that in view of several judgments passed by this
Hon'ble Court, the State Government vide letter
no. 1820 dated 17.11.1998 directed the
Universities to consider the regularization of the
services under the staffing pattern of those
employees only who fulfill the following
criteria: -
(i) The post on which the
employee is working was admissible under
the staffing pattern at the time of
appointment.
(ii) The employee was having
requisite qualification at the time of
appointment.
(iii) The employee was appointed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
by the competent authority
(iv) The employee was appointed
by following the Act and Rule (iv) as well as
in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India or the appointment
was made on the basis of interview by the
selection committee after publication of the
vacancy in the newspaper.
(v) After appointment whether
the employee is continuing in service. This
aspect is to be verified by examining the
attendance register and payment register.
Report is to be sent by the University
in the format attached to the said letter.
8. That it is stated and humbly
submitted that in view of the aforesaid letter i.e.
letter no. 1820 dated 17.11.1998, the final
decision regarding regularization of non-
teaching employees under the staffing pattern is
to be taken by the State Government, if the
University recommends the case of such
employee in terms of letter no. 1820 dated
17.11.1998.
9. That it is further stated and
submitted that from the counter affidavit filed by
the University, it is evident that the University
vide letter no. 3662 dated 07.07.2020 sent a
recommendation to the State Government for
regularization of service of the petitioner in
view of letter no. 1820 dated 17.11.1998.
28. On the other hand, the Counter affidavit on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
behalf of Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 has also been filed and the
entire responsibilities have been shifted upon the State
Government and with regard to payment of salary & subsistence
allowance, it has been stated that the approval of the services of
the petitioner would be required from the State Government,
only then, the University will be in a position to pay the salary
and subsistence allowance as prayed by the petitioner in this
writ petition.
29. One supplementary counter affidavit has also
been filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2 (The State
of Bihar and Director, Higher Education, Education Department,
Bihar, Patna) wherein specific stand has been taken at
paragraph- 6 and 7 which are follows:
".......6. That it is pertinent to
mention here that in view of letter of the state
Government dated 17.11.1998 the final
decision regarding regularization of non-
teaching employees under the staffing pattern
is to be taken by the State Government, if the
University recommends the case of such
employee in terms of the letter of the letter of
the State Government dated 17.11.1998.
7. That it is stated and submitted that
the university vide its letter no. 3662 dated
07.07.2020 sent report for approval of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
regularization of the petitioner made by the
University under the staffing pattern in view of
letter no. 1820 dated 17.11.1998."
30. Subsequently, the Respondents No.1 and 2 (The
State of Bihar and Director, Higher Education, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna) have also filed second supplementary
Counter affidavit, in which the report was sent by the University
with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioner,
and the stand of the Department of Education was that the
petitioner was appointed against the unsanctioned post and the
approval of the University has not been granted on which the
petitioner was appointed. The contentions made in the affidavit
at paragraphs-7 and 8 read as follows: -
"7. That it is stated that the report
of the University has been considered by the
Education Department of the State
Government and it has been found as follows:-
a) Petitioner was appointed against
the unsanctioned post.
b) Approval of University has not
been granted on the post on which the
petitioner was appointed.
c) No advertisement was published
for the post on which the petitioner was
appointed.
d) Reservation policy has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
followed in the appointment of the petitioner.
e) University has no information
about constitution of Selection Committee in
appointment of the petitioner.
f) Petitioner was appointed on the
post of Computer Installer on the
recommendation of Principal, Rajendra
College, Chapra purely on daily wages
whereas post of Computer Installer does not
exist in the University.
g) Provision under section 35(2) of
the Bihar State Universities Act has not been
followed by the University.
8. That it is stated that in view of the
above stated facts, the recommendation of the
University for regularization of the petitioner
has been rejected by the State Government by
its order as contained in letter no. 739 dated
15.03.2021. A show cause has also been asked
from the University vide letter no. 738 dated
15.03.2021 as to how the service has been
regularized with condition that the financial
benefits could be provided after getting
approval of the State Government in spite of
the fact that the University found the
appointment of the petitioner as illegal.
31. Learned Counsel of the University has further
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
taken this Court to the stand taken by the
Respondents/University in its counter affidavit wherein the
specific stand of the University reveals that the petitioner's
service was approved as a daily wager by the B.R. Ambedkar
Bihar University, Muzaffarpur on 17.11.1989 and he continued
as Lab In charge in Physics. On 04.06.2010, his service was
regularized as Lab In-charge in Physics in Rajendra College,
Chapra and as such, the record reveals that the petitioner
somehow managed to continue in the services without sanction
of the competent authority by taking advantage of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court and he managed to get fixed salary
and got himself redesignated as Demonstrator in connivance
with the then authorities of the college and the University. He
further contended that after due deliberation and consideration,
the State Government rejected and disapproved the
recommendation of the University for regularization of the
services of the petitioner vide letter No. 739 dated 15.03.2021
which has not been challenged by the petitioner till date.
32. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel by
taking to the contentions made in the rejoinder to the affidavits
having been filed by the University, has tried to impress upon
this Court by referring to various letter issued by the University
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
and the Notification dated 04.06.2010 as contained in Annexure-
4 of the main petition whereby the services of the petitioner was
regularized in light of direction passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court amongst other persons pursuant to which the petitioner
was redesignated as Demonstrator in the services of the
University which is in accordance with law. It has further been
submitted that the stand taken by the University is completely
misconceived and as such, the same is fit to be rejected as the
counsel is alleging the conduct of his own officers for the
purpose of opposing the relief and defeating the cause and such
stand of the University is hit by the doctrine of estoppel.
whereas, the entire action of the University was as per the
directions having been issued from time to time was the factum
of staffing pattern being applicable during the time has not been
denied.
33. While assailing the order impugned, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, has further relied upon the
judgment rendered by this Court passed in CWJC No. 16539 of
2016 (Birendra Kumar Mishra v. The Jai Prakash University
Chapra & Ors) wherein it has been stated that a similarly
situated person of J.P. University had moved this Hon'ble Court
in which the following orders were passed: -
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
"In view of the Apex Court judgment
in the case of State of Bihar and others vs.
Abdus Salam mentioned, the State is required to
consider the case of the petitioner for all
benefits to which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in terms of the order of the Apex
Court. Necessary decision in this regard may be
taken by the respondents within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order. It is needless to state here
that consequential benefits including monetary
benefit in terms of the decision of the Apex
Court shall be made available to the petitioner
within a further period of two months from the
date of such decision.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition
stands disposed of".
34. After the order was passed the J.P. University
preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 619 of 2018 against the said
order dated 26.03.2018 passed in CWJC No. 16539 of 2016.
The Letters Patent Appeal was heard and relying upon various
judgments passed by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the
case Braj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1997(1)
PLJR 509 and Upendra Singh v. State of Bihar (Civil Appeal
No. 2356 of 2018 decided on 23rd of February, 2018. The
Hon'ble Division Bench made serious deliberations of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
dispute raised in the said case and the stand of the University as
well as the State Government, being similar to that of the instant
case, was examined referring to various orders and minutes of
the University as well as letters issued by the Government. The
relevant extract of the order passed in the aforesaid LPA is
reproduced herein-below for ready reference and letters so
relied may be referred from the order dated 23.02.2018, which
is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity: -
"............9. The University in response to a
query made by the Principal of the Institution
wrote a letter on 20th December, 1997 that the
appointment of the respondent-petitioner was
within the staffing pattern and the norms
prescribed and therefore his appointment was
in accordance with the same.
10. A dispute was raised with regard
to the payments to be made to the respondent-
petitioner along with some other employees
and in the meantime in view of certain judicial
pronouncements the designation of the post as
that of Demonstrator ensued. The Principal of
Rajendra College, Chapra, where the
respondent-petitioner was working, wrote a
letter to that effect to the Registrar along with
the details of his appointment. This was to be
done pursuant to the notification dated 14th
June, 2006, copy whereof has been filed as
Annexure-28 to the writ petition. Consequently,
a notification was issued by the University on
15th July, 2010 indicating the re-designation of
the respondent-petitioner as Demonstrator. The
notification of re-designation was approved by
the University that is on record. The University
while submitting this pay-fixation
recommendations to the Government included
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
the name of the respondent-petitioner showing
his designation as Assistant Demonstrator in
the College. Thus, the University itself
continued to treat the respondent-petitioner
within the staffing pattern of Rajendra College,
Chapra as an Assistant Demonstrator in the
Laboratory of the College. While showing the
details of expenditure, the charts which were
filed by the University and the budget
demanded indicated the expenditure to be
incurred which included two lab personnel
based on the staffing pattern of the University.
This entire chart is Annexure- 30 to the writ
petition. The petitioner had represented his
entire matter on 15th of June, 2016 where he
had entailed his entire journey having served in
the college and his service having been
recognized by the appellant-University.
11. The matter of designation as
Demonstrators became subject matter of
litigation before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
12967 of 2012 after the Government had
withdrawn the resolution dated 14.06.2006
referred to above. This withdrawal on 10th
April, 2012 became subject matter of challenge
in the said writ petition.
12. The State Government had
issued a letter on 16th of March, 2012
informing the Accountant General of payments
being made to the staff appointed based on the
staffing pattern of the Institution, particularly
with regard to the Laboratory Staff working in
colleges for which a budget of Rs.
10,74,27,432/- was released. This document of
16th March, 2012 is Annexure-40 to the writ
petition. This is one of the documents which
indicates the release of payments by the
Government as against the post, one of which
was being occupied by the respondent-
petitioner.
13. A perusal thereof would indicate
that at Serial No. 3 the College in which the
respondent-petitioner is working as a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
Laboratory Personnel is included and which
also indicates the designation as a
Demonstrator together with the salary
admissible to the respondent-petitioner.
14. It is in this background that the
respondent-petitioner filed a writ petition
giving rise to the present controversy and
claimed payment of salary at par with the
benefits extended to Abdus Salam and others.
15. During the course of the
arguments in the present appeal, learned
counsel for the respondent-petitioner has also
invited the attention of the Court to the
notification of the Education Department dated
17.08.1979 to contend that the continuance of
the respondent-petitioner after appointment is
in conformity with the norms prescribed in the
staffing pattern of Laboratory Staff in the
Universities including the Bhagalpur
University.
16. Shri Anjani Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellant-University
while advancing his submissions has urged that
the respondent-petitioner was not appointed
after due advertisement etc. as his appointment
was not in conformity with law. The second
argument is that any relief relating to the re-
designation on the post of Demonstrator is
inadmissible. The third argument is that there
was no sanctioned post by the State
Government and, therefore, the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge drawing
parity with the case of Abdus Salaam is
unfounded. The 4th argument is that even if in
the case of Abdus Salam any directions were
issued, the said judgment is based on the two
earlier Full Bench decisions in the case of Braj
Kishore Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 509 and again in
the same case Braj Kishore Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 668.
17. The submission is that these
decisions were rendered extending the benefit
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
by treating such employees to have become
regular, but the ratio of the said decisions now
stands diluted with the Constitution Bench
judgment in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006)
4 SCC 1. He has further relied on the Full
Bench decision in the case of Ram Sevak
Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in 2013(1) PLJR 964 to contend that
such a benefit cannot be extended in the
background aforesaid. He has further relied on
the judgment in the case of Veer Kunwar Singh
University Ad Hoc Teachers Association and
others Vs. Bihar State University (C.C.)
Service Commission and others, reported in
(2009) 17 SCC 184 and the judgment in the
case of Nand Lal Bhagat & Ors. Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. decided on 25th July, 2013
that has been affirmed in the case of Upendra
Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2018) 3
SCC 680. These judgments have been cited to
contend that to treat employees on regular
basis would be permissible only if the initial
appointments were valid and against
sanctioned posts. He has submitted that even
now there is no such sanctioned post and,
therefore, the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge cannot be sustained.
18. To begin with, we may first point
out that from the letter dated 17.08.1979,
extracted hereinabove, the creation and
appointment on the post of Demonstrators had
been banned with effect from 18.09.1975 that
had resulted in a lot of difficulties being faced
by the laboratories in the various departments
of the University and Colleges. The
Government, therefore, resolved that for the
purpose of science laboratories, an Assistant to
be now appointed in the laboratories would be
known as Laboratory-In-charge with his
specific qualification of Intermediate in science
and would be a Class-III post. The duties and
responsibilities were defined therein and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
norms fixed thereunder are that if a laboratory
is attended by a minimum of 32 students, then
there would be one Laboratory-In-charge to
assist the laboratory on this strength. If there
are several shifts of such students, there would
only be a total of two Laboratory Assistants.
20. The petitioner, respondent
herein, admittedly was the only Laboratory
Attendant in the Chemistry lab of the College.
There is no dispute that the University did
continue to treat him as such which is evident
from the resolutions that were passed by the
University from time to time including the
resolution for designating him as a
Demonstrator. The appellant-University,
therefore, itself had never disputed this fact
about the continuance and the services of the
respondent-petitioner being taken by Rajendra
College, Chapra. The argument raised by Shri
Anjani Kumar on this score is that the
Chancellor had annulled the administrative
and financial decisions of the University on
22nd of February, 2011. We may point out that
the University itself had been sending the claim
of the petitioner for payment of salary and it
kept it under consideration. This is further
fortified by the document dated 16th March,
2012 which was based on the information
given by the University and had been sent by
the State Government through a Secretary of
the Education Department informing the
Accountant General with regard to the
availability and the appointments made in
Rajendra College, Chapra for which a certain
amount of budget had been released. This
document of 16th March, 2012 is subsequent to
the decision of the Chancellor dated
22.02.2011 and, therefore, the argument that
the decision of the University had been
annulled gets contradicted by the said
evidence. The University, therefore, cannot be
allowed to take a stand different than its own
documents which is now being advanced on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
ground as if the University had committed
mistakes earlier and was seeking to rectify the
same at this stage.
(Emphasis supplied by the undersigned)
21. It is for this that the argument
now advanced is that the respondent-petitioner
was not working against a sanctioned post and
his appointment had not been made in
accordance with the procedure prescribed. We
may point out that with regard to the procedure
adopted for the appointment of the respondent-
petitioner, the document available on record is
the letter of appointment issued by the
University itself and which is dated 9th of May,
1985, extracted hereinabove. It is correct that
the said letter itself indicates the appointment
being in anticipation of a sanctioned post, but
at the same time the appellant-University has
been unable to dispute the position taken by the
respondent-petitioner that his appointment was
within the staffing pattern as prescribed by the
State Government in the notification dated
17.08.1979. This aspect of an appointment
being valid, if it is within the sanctioned
strength was subject matter of the two Full
Benches in the case of Braj Kishore Singh Vs.
State of Bihar (supra) where it has been held
that if the post is being held by a person within
the staffing pattern, the same cannot be held to
be a non-sanctioned post. To the contrary, the
sanction will be deemed and presumed to have
been made if it is within the staffing pattern.
The said decision has been relied on in the case
of Abdus Salam (supra) and which matter has
now attained finality up to the Apex Court. It is
for this reason that the learned Single Judge
under the impugned judgment has extended the
benefits of payment of salary and other
pecuniary benefits to the respondent-petitioner
in the light of the law laid down therein. This is
further fortified by the fact that on the basis of
the information tendered by the appellant
University, the State Government had sent the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
documents to the Accountant General
acknowledging the fact of the existence of the
post for which salary was being claimed
including the post of the respondent-petitioner.
22. It is the appellant-University
which has come up in appeal questioning the
services of almost 34 years spent by the
respondent-petitioner being the only
Laboratory-In- charge in the College, and not
the State. This additional feature, therefore,
also goes in favour of the respondent-petitioner
that the appellant-University which had itself
allowed the induction of the respondent-
petitioner is now disputing his claim when it
comes to monetary benefits. The University is
estopped by its own conduct throughout in now
disputing the claim of respondent-petitioner
after he has discharged more than 33 years of
service. This would not only be unjust but also
amongst equity and fair play. It is well settled
that law is good but justice is better. This is one
of the cases where the employer in spite of
having acknowledged the continuance of the
respondent-petitioner for more than 33 years
and there being no effort to withdraw the letter
of appointment of 1985, has questioned the
claim of the respondent-petitioner but the
issues were legally answered against the
University referred to hereinabove.
23. We, therefore, do not find any
force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the University on the issue of the manner of
appointment and the post occupied by the
respondent-petitioner in the above given
circumstances. The argument based on the
judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) and
the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) that the
same dilutes and takes away the impact of the
earlier Full Bench judgment in the case of Braj
Kishore Singh (supra) is an argument that
would not apply logically, inasmuch as, the
case of Umadevi (supra) or Ram Sevak Yadav
(supra) or even for that matter Upendra Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
(supra) all relate to regularization of services
where it has been held that regularization can
be extended if the appointment was irregular,
and not illegal, that too even against a
sanctioned post.
24. In our opinion, the present is not
a case of regularization as is being claimed by
the appellant, inasmuch as, the respondent-
petitioner has taken the stand of having been
appointed in accordance with the staffing
pattern and to that extent the judgment of Braj
Kishore Singh (supra) laying down the law in
favour of the respondent-petitioner has not
been diluted by any subsequent judgment nor it
has been overruled. The said judgment is on
the issue of staffing pattern and not on the
issue of regularization.
25. The instant is also a case where
the claim is based on having continued in
service and treated as such by the appellant-
University for long without having withdrawn
any benefits that were extended to the
respondent-petitioner including his
continuance in service. The University has
never withdrawn the letter of appointment
issued in favour of the respondent-petitioner
way back in the year 1985. His appointment
was neither cancelled nor was it held to be
unlawful or beyond the sanctioned strength
prescribed in the staffing pattern. There being
no material to contradict this aspect, the law
relating to regularization would not affect the
respondent-petitioner as urged on behalf of the
appellant-University.
(Emphasis supplied by the undersigned)
26. Learned counsel for the
appellant Shri Anjani Kumar urged that the
judgment in the case of Abdus Salam (supra)
does not take into consideration these issues
and, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be
good law so as to bind this Court to follow the
same.
27. We may only point out that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
learned Single Judge has noted these facts and
which have also been noticed by us while
recording the submissions on 26th April, 2019
extracted hereinabove. The Special Leave
Petition in the said matter was dismissed on
27th of February, 2012 and we can safely
presume that this argument which is now being
advanced was very much available then and
yet it did not find favour in the decision of
Abdus Salam. Consequently, the case of the
respondent-petitioner cannot be distinguished
from the case of Abdus Salam Vs. State of
Bihar (supra). We, therefore, do not find any
merit in this appeal, which is accordingly
rejected."
(Emphasis supplied by undersigned)
35. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the
said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Patna
High Court in LPA No. 619 of 2018 was challenged by J.P.
University & Ors by filing Special Leave to Appeal © No.
29162 of 20169, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 09.09.2022.
36. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the
view that the appointment of the petitioner was within the
staffing pattern and the payments were also being made to the
petitioner by taking a conscious decision and further in view of
certain judicial pronouncement as referred above, the
redesignation of the post of Demonstrator was also ensured and
the Notification of re-designation was also approved by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
State Government and further pay fixation recommendation to
the Government in the name of this petitioner was also done and
was recognized by extending the said benefits, which would be
apparent from the documents appended by the petitioner of the
instant writ petition.
37. From the materials available on record, it is
apparent that the State Government recognized the staffing
pattern of the institution and particularly with regard to the
laboratory staff working in the colleges by informing the
Accountant General for making payments to them appointed on
the basis of said pattern by redesignating him on the post of
Demonstrator.
38. The stand of the University as well as the State
Government that the petitioner was not appointed after due
process of law and issuance of advertisement and his
appointment is not in conformity with law and further argument
on their behalf that any relief relating to the redesignation on the
post of demonstrator is inadmissible as there was no sanctioned
post approved by the State Government, is not tenable as the
same is in the teeth of judgment rendered in the case of State of
Bihar and others vs. Abdus Salam (CWJC No. 2002 of 2010),
which is passed relying upon two earlier full Bench decisions in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
the case of Braj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar reported in
1997(1) PLJR 509 and again in the same case Braj Kishore
Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2004(3) PLJR 668.
39. From the Judgment of the Division Bench, it is
quite clear that the issue raised with regard to appointment, not
having been made against the sanctioned post, has categorically
been answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No.- 619 of 2018. From the documents available on
record and the appointment letter issued by the University goes
to show that the said appointment were made in anticipation of
the sanctioned post and the University has not been able to
dispute the said legal position. The appointment of the petitioner
was within the staffing pattern as prescribed by the State
Government vide Notification dated 17.08.1979 and as such, the
appointment is valid in view of dictum of Full Bench Judgments
as mentioned above, and further, if it was within the sanctioned
strength, and in the aforementioned judgments, is categorically
been held that if the post is being held by a person within the
staffing pattern, the same cannot be held to be a non-sanctioned
post.
40. Taking cue from the findings recorded in the
aforementioned judgments, it goes without saying that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
sanction will be deemed and presumed to have been made, if the
same is within the staffing pattern as per the findings recorded
in the case of Abdus Salam (supra), which has now attained
finality up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. From the factual position
obtaining on record, the post held by the petitioner was within
the staffing pattern, the same cannot be held to be a non-
sanctioned post This fact further fortifies by the fact that on the
basis of information rendered by the University to the State
Government, the State Government sent the document to the
Accountant General acknowledging the fact of existence of the
post, for which the salary was being claimed by the petitioner
and other similarly situated persons, which fact is not denied by
the respondents in their Counter Affidavit.
41. It is in this background, it can safely be
concluded that a party cannot be allowed to take advantage of
its own wrong ("commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere
debet") and any such stand purposely being made to defeat the
cause of justice and much less, when it comes to grant of
monetary benefits to the person, who has served the said
establishment throughout his life and has discharged his duties
for more than three decades, is wholly unacceptable and
unwarranted and deserved to be interfered with.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
42. In such view of the matter, the University is
estopped by its own conduct displayed throughout, by
recognizing the service of the petitioner under staffing pattern,
by granting appropriate pay scale and redesignating him on the
post of Demonstrator in the light of orders passed by the
Hon'ble Court from time to time. The attempts having been
made to dispute the bona fide claim of the petitioner by keeping
the petitioner suspended by issuing show cause is in the teeth of
the dictum of Hon'ble full Bench of Patna High Court and
further issues having been put at rest at the level of Hon'ble
Apex Court, is highly deprecated.
43. This court holds that issuance of such notice by
incorporating such issues which have judicially been given
quietus, is completely derogatory and shows thorough non-
application of mind, and therefore, the impugned Order as
contained in Letter No.-100-LO dated 27.01.2018 issued by the
Registrar of Jai Prakash University, Chapra, by which the
petitioner has remained under continued suspension till the date
of superannuation, owing to his appointment having been found
to be made against the Non-sanctioned post and rejection of the
claim of the petitioner being contrary to their own stand taken before
Hon'ble Court in the aforementioned judgment, is set aside and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
the petitioner is directed to be reinstated back in service with all
consequential benefits.
44. It is worth to note that the present litigation
remained unnecessarily pending and has burdened the docket of
this Court because the issuing authority did not examine the
settled law before issuing the show cause questioning the nature
of service and his appointment against the non-sanctioned post,
while it was already settled by Hon'ble court in different cases
referred above. To utter surprise, the said appeal was preferred
by the same University to ventilate the issues in question and in
this background, this court finds it deem fit and proper to award
cost to be deposited in Patna High Court Legal Services
Committee for unnecessarily keeping the docket of Hon'ble
Court burdened and wasting Hon'ble Court's time for all these
years.
45. The mistake committed in law by the authorities
under the University could have corrected during these years by
making an attempt to put their house in order. Having not done
so and allowed the litigation to continue in derogation of the
settled legal position, this court directs the University to pay
cost to the tune of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in Patna High
Court Legal Services Committee, which may be recovered from
Patna High Court CWJC No.4730 of 2020 dt.25-08-2025
the person having issued the impugned letter by following due
process of law.
46. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
AFR/NAFR N/A
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.08.2025
Transmission Date 25.08.2025
