JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.03.2016, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of unified pay-scale of Rs.785-1210 treating the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. with effect from 01.02.1986 and for fixation of his salary in the said pay-scale at appropriate stage after grant of increments, has been rejected on the ground that the service prior to 01.08.1993 is not in accordance with University’s regulations. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents: (I) to treat the services of the petitioner from 01.12.1986 i.e. from the date of his joining as typist-cum-steno for all the purposes and re-fix the salary in the revised scale and pay the arrears of consequential benefits accordingly; (II) for payment of salary for the period between May, 1990 to October, 1990 and from February, 1991 to January, 1994; & (III) to pay interest on all delayed payments and costs for such other dues and benefits for which the petitioner be found entitled to, in accordance with law. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case in short is that petitioner was initially appointed as typist-cum-steno on casual basis vide letter dated 30.11.1986, issued by the Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro and in response to which, the petitioner gave his joining on 01.12.1986. Subsequently, by the order of the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi, vide letter dated 14.05.1990, the appointment of the petitioner was regularized to the post of clerk-cum-typist in the scale of Rs.580-860 and the same was communicated to the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro vide letter dated 22.05.1990. It is further case of the petitioner that on the allegation of taking part in the strike called by non-teaching staff, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 22.03.1991 but subsequently, the order of termination was quashed and the petitioner was reinstated in the service vide letter dated 15.05.1991. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh vide office order dated 14.03.1994, informed that in pursuant to an order dated 17.01.1994 passed in the Cont. Case No. 280 and 404 of 1993 and also in view of order dated 25.09.1991, passed in W.P.(C). The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh vide office order dated 14.03.1994, informed that in pursuant to an order dated 17.01.1994 passed in the Cont. Case No. 280 and 404 of 1993 and also in view of order dated 25.09.1991, passed in W.P.(C). No. 409 of 1991, services of some of the non-teaching staff were regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1993 or from their date of joining, whichever is later against the post sanctioned by the State Govt. vide letter dated 04.02.1994. It is the specific case of the petitioner that inadvertently, the services of the petitioner was again regularized by the said office order though his services were already regularized on 04.02.1994. In regard to the above anomaly, the Principal of the College vide its letter dated 06.05.2000, informed the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University that the services of the petitioner has already been regularized and he is getting the pay-scale of Rs.1320-2040 but the University has fixed his salary in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-1800, which is not in accordance to R.U. letters dated 14.05.1990 and 11.05.1985 and hence, correction is required with respect to pay-scale and designation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Principal of the College time and again made several correspondences to the University for making necessary corrections in fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner but no action was taken by the University in that regard. It is the further case of the petitioner that he did not receive the salary for the period between May, 1990 to October, 1990 and again from February, 1991 to January, 1994, inspite of the fact that his termination order was quashed and hence, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 28.09.1993 before the Registrar of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. When inspite of several representations filed by the petitioner as well as written request made by the Principal of the College no heed was paid, the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 6715 of 2014, which was disposed of on 27.08.2015, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner submitted his representation on 07.09.2015 to the respondent No. 2, which was duly received. No. 6715 of 2014, which was disposed of on 27.08.2015, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner submitted his representation on 07.09.2015 to the respondent No. 2, which was duly received. But inspite of the order of the Hon’ble Court and receipt of the representation of the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents and the petitioner filed Cont. Case No. 125 of 2016. However, during the pendency of the contempt case, the respondents passed order dated 15.03.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appointment and regularization of services of the petitioner prior to 01.08.1983 was not in accordance with law and regulations of the University and hence, the petitioner withdrew the said contempt case with a liberty to challenge the rejection order dated 15.03.2016. Throwing challenge to the order dated 15.03.2016, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.03.2016 is illegal, invalid and not in accordance with the letter dated 14.05.1990 issued by the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University by which the services of the petitioner were regularized to the post of clerk-cum-typist in the pay-scale of Rs.580-860/-. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent-V.B. University cannot ignore the various correspondences made by the Principle of the College to correct the pay-scale and designation of the petitioner. The respondent-authorities cannot adopt an arbitrary and discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner since in case of similarly situated employees, namely, Banke Bihari Singh and T.N. Jha, the University has shifted their date of regularization. The Respondent-authorities cannot deny the salary for the period between May, 1990 to October, 1990 and from February, 1991 to January, 1994 and also the claim of the petitioner for unified scale of pay in view of various letters of the Govt. of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that while passing the impugned order the Vice Chancellor neither applied his mind nor has considered the case of the petitioner in entirety. Learned counsel submits that for the reasons assigned by the respondents in the impugned order are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that while passing the impugned order the Vice Chancellor neither applied his mind nor has considered the case of the petitioner in entirety. Learned counsel submits that for the reasons assigned by the respondents in the impugned order are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and argues that an employee whose initial appointment was not as per the procedure established by law, can be regularized, if at all, only from the date of availability of a sanctioned vacant post or joining against such a sanctioned and vacant post, whichever is later. An employee cannot be regularized with effect from a date when there was no sanctioned and vacant post available against which he could be regularized. The petitioner was appointed as typist on 30.11.1986 by the then Principal of B.S.C. College against an unsanctioned post and that too without any advertisement or roster clearance and without following any of norms laid down for such an appointment in the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. His appointment was against the provisions contained in Section 35 of the B.S.U. Act, 1976. In view of the said fact, the very initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and not fit to be regularized at all. Further, the Ranchi University regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.05.1990, without ascertaining the availability of any sanctioned and vacant post and other foundational facts relevant for such consideration. Thus, the regularization of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.05.1990 by Ranchi University was/ is wrong and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-V.B. University ascertained the relevant facts and found that the first sanctioned and vacant post against which the petitioner could be regularized was available only w.e.f. 01.08.1993 and not earlier. Accordingly, the services of petitioner and other similarly situated persons was regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1993 or from the date of their joining whichever is later. The petitioner accepted this date of regularization i.e. 01.08.1993 and had not protested against the same at that time. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, fit to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner accepted this date of regularization i.e. 01.08.1993 and had not protested against the same at that time. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner was working against the vacant post of Assistant and the said post was sanctioned vide letter No. J/P2-013/79 Ed. 174 dated 23.01.1979 and he is still continuing on the said post and presently posted in the examination department of the College. As the post of Assistant stood vacant due to promotion of one Arun Rajhans to the post of Assistant Librarian, Ranchi University adjusted/ regularized the petitioner as clerk-cum-typist w.e.f. 14.05.1990. From the documents brought on record, it appears that Principal of the Bokaro Steel College had declared that 38 posts were sanctioned for non-teaching staff as per letters dated 23.01.1979 and 19.08.1982 and 38 posts were sanction vide letter dated 20.08.1993. As such, it can comfortably be said that the post of LDC was vacant at the time of regularization of the petitioner by Ranchi University. It also appears that vide reference No. BSCC/G-030/10 dated 24.02.2010, the list of working non-teaching staff of Bokaro Steel College was furnished/ certified to the Director through the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave Uniservity, Hazaribagh, whereby it was categorically stated that the sanctioned post as per letter have been verified and found correct. In the said list, the name of the petitioner stood at Sl. No. 6. The Vinoba Bhave University came into existence in the year 1992 and the aforesaid College was carved out of the jurisdiction of Ranchi University and placed under the jurisdiction of Vinoba Bhave University w.e.f. 17.09.1992 as a constituent College. The law is well settled that any decision taken by the parent body cannot be turned down arbitrarily, by the carved out body, in the instant case, the Vinoba Bhave University. Any order of parent body has to be followed by the nearby body created and the same cannot be altered or changed. Hence, any regularization done by the Ranchi University prior to the constitution of Vinoba Bhave University, is absolutely valid, legal and in accordance with law. Any order of parent body has to be followed by the nearby body created and the same cannot be altered or changed. Hence, any regularization done by the Ranchi University prior to the constitution of Vinoba Bhave University, is absolutely valid, legal and in accordance with law. The respondent-B.V. University cannot pick and choose and discriminate the petitioner, as in the case of other similarly situated person i.e. Banke Bihari Singh and T.N. Jha, peon of the College, their date of regularization was shifted from 01.08.1993 to 05.01.1974 but the same benefit has been denied in case of the present petitioner. The respondent cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method and the parity has to be maintained. 7. As sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, order dated 15.03.2016, passed by respondent No. 3, is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. As a result of the quashment of the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits for which he is entitled for, in accordance with law, treating his date of regularization as 14.05.1990, which is also apparent from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.