Ahsanuddin Amanullah JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; State and Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'). Despite respondents No. 9 to 11 entering appearance and filing counter affidavit, nobody was present on their behalf when the case was taken up and heard.
2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:
"That the present writ application is being filed to declare that since these petitioners were appointed in the year 1981 and joined on 27.7.1981 on the post of Assistant against sanctioned and vacant post in Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif as such their pay be fixed on present prevailing scale since the date of their joining and arrears of salary be paid accordingly with interest @ 12% per year and they should be declared and treated as Senior to Respondent IInd set and further by a writ of certiorari to quash the Memo No. 66/GK dated 29.4.2004 as contained in Annexure-16 by which the Respondent IInd set were illegally retransferred from Kisan College, Sohsarai to Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif against the spirit of this Hon'ble court by order dated 8.7.02 as contained in Annexure-14 and also to quash three letters dated 8.3.2000 issued by State Government as contained in Annexure-19 series by which the pay of Respondent IInd set were deemed to be fixed in Higher Grade and thereby they want to become senior to the petitioners because their so called promotions, in the year 1981, were done when neither of them had completed 10 years of service in Grade IV."
3. In effect, the petitioners have prayed that their services be treated from the day they joined i.e., 27.07.1981, on the post of Assistant and accordingly all benefits of pay etc. be fixed and further that they be treated senior to the respondents No. 9 to 11.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the advertisement in the then daily newspaper "Indian Nation" dated 31.03.1981, they had applied for their respective posts and pursuant thereto, they were appointed under order dated 25.06.1981, issued by the Deputy Registrar of the University. Learned counsel submitted that the same clearly reveals that the due procedure prescribed in law was followed while making such appointment and the posts had already been created by the general body of the college prior to 16.03.1976, which was in accordance with law as the college was managed by a private Governing Body which had the authority to create such posts. Learned counsel submitted that the chart prepared by the Principal of the college shows that already such posts were sanctioned by the Governing Body prior to 16.03.1976, and at the relevant point of time, even the sanctioned posts were available. In this connection, he has referred to Annexure-4 which is a typed statement on the basis of which such submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was further submitted that the respondents No. 9 to 11 were promoted from Class-IV Posts to Class-III Posts but were posted to a different college and had illegally continued on the post in the college in question which rightfully should have been filled up by the petitioners and, thus, they ought not to suffer due to the illegality committed by the University/College authorities. Learned counsel submitted that the posts which were advertised and against which the petitioners were appointed comes under the staffing pattern and, thus, they would be deemed to have been sanctioned in terms of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar reported as MANU/BH/0131/1997 : 1997 (1) PLJR 509. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment clarifies the situation that posts under the staffing pattern would be deemed to be sanctioned ........