ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. I.S. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Vinoba Bhave University, Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned A.C. to A.A.G. and Mr. Afaque Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 02.02.2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner whereunder the respondents have changed the date of joining of the petitioner from 28.05.1985 to 01.08.1993 and have substantially reduced the scale of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-III posts. By referring the paragraph 4 of the writ petition he submits that in the year 1981 an advertisement, was published by the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro for filling up the vacancies for different posts. Vide letter dated 05.02.1983 (annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition) the petitioner was called for interview by the Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner appeared in the interview and he was selected by the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi and published the list of selected candidates in class III and IV posts. The name of the petitioner was listed at top of the list under Grade-III category. The petitioner was only SC category in the list. The list of selected candidates annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On 4.5.1985 a separate office order has been issued with respect to Grade-III & Grade-IV under the signature of Deputy Registrar of the University, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On perusal of the Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it transpires that the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 1. The petitioner was directed to report to the post of Grade-III to the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro latest by end of May, 1985. Accordingly, the petitioner joined that post on 28.05.1985. The service book of the petitioner has also been opened, relevant portion of the service book annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In service book it is clearly depicted that date of joining of the petitioner is May, 1985. When the 5th Pay revision pay fixation and chart has been issued by the Vinoba Bhave University in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. In service book it is clearly depicted that date of joining of the petitioner is May, 1985. When the 5th Pay revision pay fixation and chart has been issued by the Vinoba Bhave University in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 19 and the date of joining has been stated as 1.8.1993. Aggrieved by this the petitioner had filed several representation before the Principal Bokaro Steel City College. The Principal, Bokaro Steel City College by letter dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) requested the member Secretary, Time Bound Promotion Committee that the date of joining of the petitioner is 28.05.1985. Again the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College by letter dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) requested the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University mentioning the fact that the date of appointment of the petitioner was w.e.f. May, 1985. The date of joining of the petitioner in that chart is reflected as 1.8.1993 is not correct. 4. Mr. Upadhyay further submits that from all these documents the date of joining of the petitioner is 28.05.1985 but in the chart the date shown as 1.8.1993 is incorrect. He further submits that the past service of an employee who has worked for such a long period cannot be denied to be taken for other benefits. He further submits that appointment, in question, was pursuant to an advertisement and after due process of law, the petitioner was appointed and the date of joining is 28.05.1985 till his superannuation and he finally retired on 30.11.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a back door entry and taking this aspect even if it is said that the petitioner’s post has been sanctioned w.e.f. 1993 past service of the petitioner cannot be ignored without any cogent reason. He relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court Passed in the Case of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Others. Vs. Chandreshwar Prasad & Others reported in 2014 1 JCR 732 (Jhr.) wherein division bench held that the regularization of the service and fresh appointment are entirely different things. The petitioners are admittedly working since 1985-86 and decision to regularize their service was taken voluntary by the employer in the year 1987 and it was not a case that they will get any priority in the matter of appointment and will be offered fresh appointment. The petitioners are admittedly working since 1985-86 and decision to regularize their service was taken voluntary by the employer in the year 1987 and it was not a case that they will get any priority in the matter of appointment and will be offered fresh appointment. Therefore, in that situation, the plea taken by the appellant has no legs to stands. By referring this judgment he submits that the case of this petitioner fully covered by the ratio held in that case. He further draws the attention of this court at Annexure-R/1 annexed with the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it is the statement of provisional pay fixation in revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.96 wherein the name of this petitioner figures at serial no. 14 and date of appointment on the basis of regular pay stated as 28.05.85 at column 6. The date of post sanctioned/regularization has been reflected as 19.08.1982. He submits that in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder, that he asserted that post of the petitioner was fully sanctioned by the competent authority of the Ranchi University and Vinoba Bhave University came into existence w.e.f. 17.09.92 later on. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Vinoba Bhave Univesity submits that the post of the petitioner has been sanctioned w.e.f. 1.8.93 and the appointment w.e.f. 1985 was temporary and as such the petitioner is not entitled for other retiral benefits. She further submits that pursuant to letter dated 10.08.2011 by the Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand and the pay fixation was done taking into consideration the letter which has not been challenged by the petitioner. She draws the attention of this Court at Annexure-10 which is the charts and submits that the petitioner is shown in the appointment list along with the others the others posts have been sanctioned w.e.f. 1982 and in the case of the petitioner it is shown as 1993 and that is why the benefits to others have been provided w.e.f. 1985 whereas the petitioner posts has been sanctioned in the year 1993. She relied in the case of Kashi Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 780 submits that in this case this Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages from time to time and the petitioners have not pleaded that at that time there were sanctioned vacant posts and that is why the petitioners have not been considered. The case relied by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of this case as on that case the petitioner was worked for more than 11 years and they have been appointed on daily wage basis and considering this aspect of the matter this Court held that there were not working on the sanctioned posts whereas the petitioner appointed after due process of law which is clear with the facts stated as herein above. Thus this case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Further she relied on the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L. Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered about the appointment which are illegal and irregular. But the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be irregular and illegal in view of the fact that the University issued admit card and subsequently the appointment have been made. If the stand of the respondent taking into consideration the said post has been sanctioned w.e.f. 1993 thus the appointment of this petitioner cannot be said illegal and irregular. Thus this judgment is also not applied in the case and also not support the respondent University. She further submits that the petitioner was not working on the sanctioned post for which she further relied upon the case of Sintu Poddar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 1 JLJR 640 (HC) and in this case the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi has been taken into account and wherein it was considered that the writ petitioners were working as casual employee and the case was dismissed but in the present case the petitioner appointment was made after following the due process of law and the case of Uma Devi also not applicable in the present case. She further relied on the case of Uma Devi. She further relied on the case of Uma Devi. Even that case in light of observation made in the Uma Devi case in the paragraph 53 of that judgment is also not help the respondents. Further para 53 of said judgment supports the case of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appointment of this petitioner is not irregular and illegal because after advertisement and following the due process of law the petitioner was appointed on that post. The case relied by the respondent University is distinguishable in the facts of this case as discussed above. The Principal of the college has admitted this fact that the petitioner was working w.e.f 28.05.1985 and he requested the staff of the concerned university to correct the date of joining. 7. As a cumulative effect of the facts and taking into account the judgment relied by the writ petitioner, the writ petition is allowed. 8. The petitioner joining held to be w.e.f. 28.05.1985 and consequently past service of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration for calculating his retiral benefits. Accordingly, the respondents are, hereby, directed to take appropriate steps so that the legal dues of this the petitioner be calculated and paid. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.