- (1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who have already been redesignated as Demonstrators from their original designation as Lab Assistants/Technicians. The petitioners are aggrieved of Clause 4 at page 69 of the compilation of the notification, which was issued on 28th September, 2007 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition), putting a rider that the redesignated employees will not be included in the teaching cadre nor they will be entitled for the benefits of teaching posts. By the aforesaid notification, all these petitioners have been redesignated as Demonstrators, but, with the rider at Clause 4 of the notification, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued out the case, in a much detail, starting from earlier batch of petitions. The earliest writ petition is C.W.J.C. No. 387 of 1995 (R), which was filed by those petitioners, before the Hon'ble High Court at Patna for redesignating them as Demonstrators from their original posts of Lab Assistants/Technicians and the said petitioner was decided in their favour vide order dated 7th September, 1995. Thus, initially there was a dispute whether the Lab Assistants/Technicians can be redesignated as Demonstrators or not and by the said writ petition, the action of the State Government was challenged that though there are guidelines given by the University Grant Commission, the State of Bihar was not redesignating the Lab Assistants/Technicians as Demonstrators, though they were qualified. Qualification of a Lab Assist ant/Technician is Intermediate with Science or Intermediate with Arts whereas qualification for the post of Demonstrator is a Degree of Bachelor with Science or a Degree of Bachelor with Arts and vide order dated 7th September, 1995, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court at Patna that those Lab Assistants/Technicians, who are having statutory qualifications for appointment or redesignation as Demonstrators, should be redesignated as Demonstrators and there was no further challenge to this decision by the State in Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) It is farther contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, thereafter, second batch of employees filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2176 of 1996(R) before Hon'ble Patna High Court and this writ petition was decided vide order dated 4th April, 1997, wherein also, similar direction was given that those Lab Assistants/Technicians, who were possessing statutory qualification for the posts of Demonstrators, should be redesignated as Demonstrators. One more direction was also given that if the petitioners cannot be accommodated as Demonstrators, then they will be also be considered as Teachers. Against this order, L.P.A. No. 274 of 1997(R) was preferred, which was decided vide order dated 9th December, 1998, wherein, first direction i.e. the Lab Assistants/Technicians, who were qualified for the posts of Demonstrators, should be redesignated as Demonstrators, was approved but, the second direction, given by the learned Single Judge was not approved.;