Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners; State and the University. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one. 3. The petitioners claim to be working as non-teaching employees (Assistants) in Vaishali Mahila College, Hajipur since 17th April, 1985. They claim for regularisation of their services in terms with Government policy decision, contained in Resolution dated 10th May, 1991, having appointed prior to 10th May, 1986. 4. According to the petitioners, they are appointed against sanctioned/deemed sanctioned posts, within staffing pattern and the College Committee also forwarded their names on 17th April, 1985. The Principal requested the University to make arrangement for payment of salary, vide letter dated 25th April, 1988, followed by Principals letter dated 21st February, 1990; 8th April, 1993; 26th April, 1994; and certificate dated 11th September, 1996, for their regularisation. It is alleged that though one or other step taken and in pursuance of this Courts direction, step taken for regularisation of services of others, but the cases of petitioners have not yet been considered. 5. According to the University, a Three-men Committee was constituted to look into the question to regularise the service of non-teaching employees of the College, in question, whatever, the documents supplied by the present Principal of the College, on the basis of same, list prepared and recommended to the State for its approval, vide letter dated 27th August 99 and 9th September, 1999, but the names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Narendra Pd. Singh; Ashok Kr. Singh; and Sanjay Kr. Singh, have not been shown by the Committee. 6. According to the petitioners, the Principal of the College has intentionally withheld the documents relating to appointment of petitioners to deprive them from the benefits of regularisation. If the documents enclosed by the petitioners are gone through, it will be evident that they are working and Principal also earlier intimated the same to the University and other authorities. 7. In the facts and circumstances, as the question, as to whether the petitioners 2 to 4 are actually working in the College or not, cannot be determined under the writ jurisdiction, I remit the matter to the Vice Chancellor of the University for decision. 8. 7. In the facts and circumstances, as the question, as to whether the petitioners 2 to 4 are actually working in the College or not, cannot be determined under the writ jurisdiction, I remit the matter to the Vice Chancellor of the University for decision. 8. The petitioners will file a detailed representation before the Vice Chancellor of the B.R.A. Bihar University showing therein the details of service career. They will also enclose the relevant evidence in their support of work and the enclosures as attached with the writ petition. 9. The Vice Chancellor on receipt of such representation, will direct the Prin- cipal of the College to produce the relevant documents and will also verify as to whether such letters were issued at the end of the Principal or not. 10. If necessary, the Vice Chancellor may endorse this work to any senior of- ficer for enquiry who may look into the question, as raised by petitioners from the original record of the College. 11. On such enquiry, if it is found that the Principal of the College deliberately withholding the names of petitioners 2 to 4, the Vice Chancellor, while recommending the names of petitioners 2 to 4 for regularisation of their services/approval of the State, will also issue order for issuance of departmental proceeding against the Principal concerned and, if so required, by suspending him. 12. A decision, in this respect, be taken and communicated to the petitioner, on an early date, but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of such decision. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.