- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Though these two petitioners had pursued their grievances in the present writ petition, but since the petitioner No. 1 has already superannuated in 2009, the petitioner No. 2 is only prosecuting his cause of action.
(3.) Essentially the grievances of the petitioners is in relation to the appointment of the respondent Nos. 9 and 10, who were appointed as Director Extension Education and Chief Scientist Dryland respectively under the Adv. No. 01/2005. The main ground for the petitioner No. 2 to be aggrieved is that he being the Scheduled Case Candidate was entitled to the benefit of reservation in the matters of appointment in view of the provisions of the statute of University specifically Rule 14.8 which permits such reservation in all appointments in the University which has been denied. It is further backed by the submission that even as per the minutes of the Board of Management of the University, reservation is to be granted to senior posts in the University. Further reference has been made to the judgment rendered in connection with the earlier Adv. Nos. 1/97 and 01/98 for appointment to various posts under the respondent-University in CWJC No. 2505 of 1998 (R). The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 16.12.1999 had been pleased to quash the advertisement for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist-cum-Associate Professor as it was held that there are plurality of the cadre of Senior Scientist-cum-Associate Professor and reservation cannot be denied on the ground that it is a single post. Following the said judgment in CWJC No. 2688 of 1998 (R) in the case of first petitioner herein, the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10.04.2000 was also pleased to quash the advertisement so far as it related to the post of Director, Extension Education and Director Student Welfare. It appears that a contempt petition was pursued by the petitioner No. 1 thereafter and the University had also preferred Letter Patent Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.2002 in LPA No. 20 of 2000 is at Annexure-B and the last operative paragraph of the judgment is worthy of being quoted hereinunder:-- "The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. The appellants are given the liberty, if they contemplate filing up the posts, to issue fresh advertisements in accordance with law and rules as are presently applicable, uninhibited by any observation/directions contained in the impugned judgment. But it is made clear that any advertisement if to be issued now would conform with the law, rules and regulations as are presently applicable.";