JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure-10 i.e. the order dated 20th of April, 1997, passed by the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar i.e. the respondent No. 1 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected and the respondent No. 4 Shri Sharad Kumar was declared to be the senior most Lecturer working in the Post-Graduate Department of Sociology, Ranchi University, Ranchi. (The Ranchi University is hereinafter called as University for the sake of convenience). The further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner to be the senior most Lecturer of the said Department of the University. 2. The case of the petitioner is that for filling up the posts of Lecturer in the Post Graduate Department of Sociology in the Ranchi University, Ranchi, the petitioner along with others, including the respondent No. 4 Sharad Kumar, Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar, Shri Vinod Narayan and Shri Mithilesh Kumar applied for the same. Four posts were for reserved category. One for the category of Economically Backward Class, one for the category of Other Backward Class and one each for the categories of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner belonged to the category of member of Scheduled Castes. 3. The Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna conducted the interview of the applicants and thereafter by issue of letter dated 19.11.1992 addressed to the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi recommended the name of the candidates for being appointed as Lecturers in the Post-Graduate Department of Sociology categorywise. The names of respondent No. 4, Sharad Kumar and Ashok Kumar Amar were recommended in the general category whereas, the name of the petitioner was recommended for the category of Scheduled Caste, the name of Shri Mithilesh Kumar was recommended for the category of Economically Backward Class and the name of Vinod Narayan was recommended for the category of Backward Class. The aforesaid recommendation has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner as per the Roster, the vacancies against Serial Nos. The aforesaid recommendation has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner as per the Roster, the vacancies against Serial Nos. 2, 8 and 15 were reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste and, accordingly, the petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Caste was appointed as a Lecturer on temporary basis mentioning specifically that he shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining by issue of Notification of the Ranchi University, dated 04.01.1993, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. The petitioner joined the said post on 01.02.1993. The respondent No. 4 Sharad Kumar, whose name was also recommended along with the petitioner was appointed on 11.01.1993 and his initial period of two years was also a probationary period. 5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 Sharad Kumar, only after 13 months of his joining i.e. without even completing the probationary period, proceeded on extraordinary leave without pay from December, 1993 to October, 1994 and the said period of his absence was treated as a break in service. The respondent No. 4 Sharad Kumar again joined on 03.10.1994. The petitioner, after completing successfully the probationary period of two years, was confirmed as a Lecturer by issue of Annexure-4 dated 26.06.1996 with effect from 01.02.1993. 6. It appears that some dispute arose with regard to the inter se seniority between the Lecturers of the said Department and then the University sought for a clarification from the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission asking as to whether the recommendation made by the Commission for appointment of the Lecturers vide Annexure- I, were in accordance with the seniority? In reply to this, the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, by issue of Annexure-6 dated 11.12.1996, intimated to the University that the recommendations sent for appointment was not in order of seniority and that the University may decide the Seniority as per the norms and rules of the Statute. 7. It appears that by issue of Annexure-7 i.e. the Notification of the University dated 30.01.1996/08.02.1996 Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar was appointed to be Head of the Department of the Post Graduate Department of Sociology on the basis of a Certificate issued by the Commission dated 16.12.1995 certifying that Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar was the senior most Lecturer. 8. 7. It appears that by issue of Annexure-7 i.e. the Notification of the University dated 30.01.1996/08.02.1996 Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar was appointed to be Head of the Department of the Post Graduate Department of Sociology on the basis of a Certificate issued by the Commission dated 16.12.1995 certifying that Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar was the senior most Lecturer. 8. The aforesaid certificate of the Commission dated 16.12.1995 as well as the Notification issued by the University dated 30.01.1996/08.02.1996 was challenged by Sri Vinod Narayan, another Lecturer in the said Department, before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 999 of 1996. In the said writ application, the present petitioner Paras Kumar Choudhary and Sharad Kumar also intervened. The High Court, after hearing the parties, disposed of the said writ application by judgment dated 20.12.1996, with a request to the Chancellor, to consider the respective cases of the parties, with regard to their claim of seniority and to take a decision in accordance with law. While disposing of the said writ application, certain relevant and important findings were also given by the High Court which are necessary to be noticed and are being reproduced hereinafter. The High Court after taking notice of the fact that the Commission had earlier issued a letter dated 11.12.1995 wherein it was mentioned that the recommendation for appointment of Lecturers issued by it was not in accordance with seniority but subsequently by issue of another letter dated 16.12.1995, certified that Dr. Ashok Kumar Amar was the senior most Lecturer as his name was recommended in the General category held as follows :-- "I have no doubt in my mind that the Second letter dated 16th of December, 1995 was issued by the Secretary of the Commission under the influence of someone and it was rightly alleged by the petitioner in the writ application that the said letter (Annexure-8) was issued by the Commission under the influence of politicians. This sort of conduct of the Commission is highly deprecated and this Court takes a serious exception of it. It was further held as follows :-- "From the Notification (Annexure-9), it appears that the dates have been mentioned i.e. 30th January/8th February. This sort of conduct of the Commission is highly deprecated and this Court takes a serious exception of it. It was further held as follows :-- "From the Notification (Annexure-9), it appears that the dates have been mentioned i.e. 30th January/8th February. I am, therefore, of the firm view that both the University Service Commission and the Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University have not acted in accordance with law and their actions are not only arbitrary but devoid of its substance." 9. Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court in CWJC No. 999 of 1996 (R), the Chancellor, respondent No. 1 by order dated the 20th of April, 1997 as contained in Annexure-10, declared Shri Sharad Kumar i.e. respondent No. 4, in this writ application to be the senior most Lecturer in the Department. This very order of the Chancellor is under challenge in the present writ application. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi University and the learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor. 11. From the impugned order of the Chancellor, I find that while dealing with the case of the petitioner, namely. Paras Kumar Choudhary, he has observed as follows :-- "His main contention is that being a Member of Scheduled Caste, he should be treated to have been appointed on second post of vacancy according to Statute laying down the roster for reservation for each lot of 100 posts. He has disputed the position of Shri Sharad Kumar stating that Shri Sharad Kumar has not completed the probation of two years as after completion only 13 months he went on leave without pay and therefore he was not entitled to be confirmed from the initial date of his joining." "It further appears that in the Statute relating to reservation of post of officers and non-teaching staff of the University And College, roster of vacancies has been prescribed. But this Statute is applicable only for categories of persons who are officers and non-teaching staff. From the perusal of this Statute, it does not appear that the lecturers are also included in it. Hence, this Statute shall not be helpful in deciding the cases of petitioners." 12. But this Statute is applicable only for categories of persons who are officers and non-teaching staff. From the perusal of this Statute, it does not appear that the lecturers are also included in it. Hence, this Statute shall not be helpful in deciding the cases of petitioners." 12. It appears that the Statute No. 16, of the Statutes of the University, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 speaks about, the mode of appointments, pay-Scale and qualifications has been overlooked by the respondent No. 1 while considering the case of the present writ petitioners and, therefore, in my view the respondent No. 1 has not considered the case of the petitioner in its right perspective. 13. Therefore, in my view the matter requires consideration by the respondent No. 1, accordingly, this application is allowed in part. The order as contained in Annexure-10 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Chancellor of the Universities of Jharkhand now, with a request to consider the respective cases of the parties on the basis of the materials already on record and on the basis of the relevant Statute of the Ranchi University and to pass a fresh order pursuant to the judgment passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 999 of 1996 (R) and of the present case. Since the master is an old one and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is requested to resolve the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.