- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE prayer, though initially made by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to re -designate him as Demonstrator, has now been confined to the condition as imposted in the notification issued during the pendency of this writ application, by the respondents whereby, though the petitioner has been re -designated as Demonstrator, but with a rider that he shall not be included in the teaching cadre and neither would he get the benefits of teaching post. The contention of the petitioner is that he possesses the requisite qualification constitute the eligibility criteria for the post of teacher, and as a Demonstrator, he posses all the qualifications to be considered for the post of teaching cadre and to be promoted to the post of Lecturer.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner refers in this context, to the definition of the term 'Teacher' as. given in Section 2 (v) of the Bihar State (now Jharkhand) University Act, 1976 and submits that as per the definition, the term 'Teacher' includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other person imparting instruction in department, college or institute maintained by the University. Learned counsel adds that this issue had been raised before the Supreme Court in an earlier writ application filed by similarly situated aggrieved Demonstrators and pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court, the State of Bihar had acknowledged that the Demonstrators are part of the teaching cadre and by treating them in the teaching cadre, had granted promotion to quite a few Demonstrators to the post of Lecturer. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure -14 to the petitioner's supplementary affidavit, which is a notification issued by Ranchi University on 2.2.2006 and which confirms the grant of Selection Grade to the Lecturers, who upon their initial appointment, were designated as Demonstrators and later,' were promoted to the post of Lecturers.;