Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) Grievance of the petitioner relates to fixation of seniority by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 07th of January, 2004, whereby and whereunder Respondent No. 3 has been ranked senior to the petitioner as Lecturer in the J.M. College, Bhurkunda, Hazaribagh.
(2.) This writ petition proceeds on certain admitted facts. Respondent No. 4 was a private College governed by its Managing Committee. In the year 1979, pursuant to an advertisement No. 1 of 1979, petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Psychology and on being interviewed on 04.11.1979, he was appointed on. 06th November, 1979. He joined the institution on 12th November, 1979. The J.M. College was duly affiliated with the Ranchi University and also had the appropriate permission of the State Government. In the year 1987 as many as 15 posts were sanctioned by the Education Department of the then State of Bihar in various disciplines including the Psychology to which the petitioner belongs. In the year 1989, two advertisements came to be issued being Advertisement No. 803 of 1989 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Psychology on permanent regular basis and the Advertisement No. 800 of 1989 for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Political Science. Respondent No. 3 applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science in response to Advertisement No. 800 of 1989, whereas, the petitioner had submitted his application for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Psychology pursuant to Advertisement No. 803 of 1989. The Bihar College Service Commission conducting the selection process made recommendations. As far the discipline of Political Science is concerned, the recommendation was made recommending respondent No. 3 vide Letter No. 383 dated 19th November, 1994. In acceptance of this recommendation, Respondent No. 3 was appointed vide letter No. JMC/345/95 dated 12th November, 1995 and she joined her post on 14th November, 1995. In so far as the discipline of Psychology is concerned for the reason best known, the Bihar College Service Commission made recommendation after about four years recommending the permanent appointment of the petitioner vide its Recommendation dated 16th September, 1998. Consequent upon receipt of this recommendation a formal appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 4, College, under No. 50/150/99 dated 08th February, 1999. It is relevant to notice that the appointment of the petitioner was made effective from the date of his initial appointment. The appointment of Respondent No. 3 was approved by the Governing Body on 23rd January, 1997 i.e. after two years of her appointment, whereas, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Governing body on 13.05.2000. Post of the Principal fell vacant in the year 2001. The Managing Committee was asked to relieve the Principal on retirement and to appoint a senior most teacher of the J.M. College as the In-charge Principal with immediate effect. This was communicated by the University to the College vide its Communication dated 05.07.2000. The Secretary of the ad hoc Committee constituted on account of supersession of the original Committee of the College appointed Respondent No. 3 as In-charge Principal till further orders vide its letter dated 30th July, 2001. Aggrieved of the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as In-charge. Principal, petitioner represented to the Registrar vide his representation date 24th August, 2001. Another representation was made on 16th of October, 2001 by some other persons. It is alleged that on account of non-consideration of these representations, petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 1507 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 16th July, 2003 with the following directions: Without going into the merit of the case I direct the Vice Chancellor of Vinobha Bhave University to consider the claim of both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and take decision as to who will be entitled to the post of Principal In-charge on the basis of seniority. Such decision must be taken within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order after hearing the parties. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall submit their claim within one week from today and the Vice Chancellor shall give one opportunity to both the parties to submit their claim before him.
(3.) In deference to the aforesaid directions of the Court, respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 07th January, 2004. While dealing with the details relating to appointment of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 in the College, Respondent No. 2 has declared the Respondent No. 3 as senior to the petitioner on account of her appointment on 14th November, 1995 i.e. earlier than the petitioner, who was appointed on 16th September, 1998 i.e. later in time.;