JUDGEMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the University, as contained in Annexure-12, being the order of the Registrar of Veer Kunwar Singh University dated 09.04.1997, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter for the reasons stated hereinafter. 2. The petitioner was appointed as temporary Peon of S.P. Jain College, Sasaram by committee of the Governing Body. At that time, S.P. Jain College was an affiliated College of the Magadh University. On 09.05.1972 he was suspended because he was found involved in a criminal case at the College itself. However, the matter of approval of his service was pending before the Governing Body, which apparently without noticing the aforesaid, on 10.05.1972 approved his services, allegedly, against a sanctioned post. In 1975, this College was taken over by the Magadh University and made a constituent College. Governing body gave a list of teaching and non-teaching staff to the University for the purposes of absorption into University service, which list did not contain the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Magadh University to which this College stood transferred, approved the name of employees of the College whose services were taken over by the University as the College became constituent even this list did not contain the name of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner now states that in 1988, and to be precise, on 21.03.1988, he was acquitted by the appellate court in the criminal case and, as such, represented to the University for revocation of his suspension and for taking him in University service, which have not been responded. 4. Petitioner came to this Court twice and ultimately pursuant to order, as contained in C.W.J.C. No. 6578 of 1992 and, subsequently in C.W.J.C. No. 3631 of 1996 disposed of on 02.04.1997, University has passed the order impugned holding that petitioner may apply for fresh service as against vacant post for which he would be given preference. Petitioner had submitted that his suspension should have been revoked by the University and he should have been taken back in the University, which as noted above, this Court does not accept. The reason is simple. In 1975 when the College was taken over and made constituent College petitioner was in service of the College though suspended. He took no steps to secure his position at the time of took over. The reason is simple. In 1975 when the College was taken over and made constituent College petitioner was in service of the College though suspended. He took no steps to secure his position at the time of took over. It cannot be said that he was not aware of take over of College by the University but he slept. He woke up only after 13 years i.e. after he was acquitted. By then the University had completed the process of take over and approving the services of the employees. He was, thus, not an employee of the University. There was no question for the University to consider any of his representations. His name not having been forwarded to the University, there was no privity between the petitioner and the University, thus, petitioner has no right to maintain this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.