R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the Vice Chancellor (Annerxure 10/A) rejecting representation of the petitioners. Mr. Singh, appearing for the petitioners submitted the petitioners were regularized in compliance of the order this Court, and no against any vacancy created by promotion of two persons, and therefore the impugned order is bad.
(3.) THE relevant facts in short are as fellows. According to the petitioners, the then Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University constituted a committee for selecting class III and IV employees Petitioners were selected and started working since 1983. The select list was then sent to the University for approval which was approved but the Principal of the College was directed to make appointment from the penal "Only against sanctioned post" (emphasis supplied). The posts were not sanctioned, there the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 502 of 1991 (R) for direction to the respondent to sanction non -teaching posts with retrospective dates for appointment of petitioners. That writ petition was disposed of with certain direction on 12.3.1991. Then a contempt petition was filed in which respondents submitted that the order of the Court has been complied. Petitioners' case was that there was some confusion due to which only the third petitioner was absorbed and therefore they again filed the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3739 of 1995(R) for directing the State Government and the University to sanction non -teaching posts of Laboratory Boy/Gas Man with retrospective effect in B.S.K. College, Maithan and for other reliefs. The stand of the University State was that the petitioners were not in service since 1991. Their names do not appear in the pay roll, which was disputed by the petitioners. University further contended that the staffing pattern as was in vogue in the year 1991 was already withdrawn in the year 1995 and therefore the petitioners could not be absorbed. The Stand of the State Government was that petitioners' appointment was totally illegal and against Sec. 35 of the University Act. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of he said writ petition by order dated 17.3.1998. The relevant concluding port on reads as follows: 6. Regarding staffing pattern and construction of Sec. 35 of the Universities Act, Mr.V.P. Singh has referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1997 1 PLJR 509. The facts and circumstances of that case is not at par with the present case. Here the posts had never been created on the basis of the staffing pattern and the appointments of the petitioners were illegally made against the non -existent post and now the staffing pattern had already been withdrawn. So the petitioners cannot be given any relief and they cannot have a right over the post they are claiming to be appointed and continuing in the service. Regarding continuance in the service of the petitioners, there is strong controversy and such dispute cannot no decided under the writ jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied) 7. The College concerned had been granted approval for running Science streams and tie subjects mentioned above must have practical classes in the Laboratory and the Laboratory cannot run without proper Laboratory Boy or Gas Man and for non -approval of posts of Laboratory Boy or Gas Man, definitely the students in the Science streams must suffer. This aspect must be considered by the Government and the University too and rethinking must be there. If any post is created for Laboratory Boy/Gas Man, then the petitioners' case must be taken on priority basis for absorption against the posts if created in near future (emphasis supplied) considering their previous experience and circumstances, as already mentioned above. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.;