The main legal point established is the importance of aligning the State's decisions with previous judicial decisions and the dismissal of appeals lacking merit.

Judgment

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE above noted two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 9-12-1998 passed in LPA No. 274 of 1997 by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The dispute pertains to the question as to whether or not the Lab Assistants, could be redesignated and treated as Demonstrators and be entitled to all such benefits, pecuniary and otherwise in the matter of promotion etc. THE Lab Assistants/technicians/incharges/instructors in different Colleges under Ranchi University filed a writ petition C. W. J. C. No. 387/95 in Patna High Court with a prayer that a direction be issued to re-designate them as demonstrators with all benefits and promotional avenues as well. The learned single Judge by judgment dated 7-9-1995 allowed the writ petition in the following terms :"the writ application must succeed. Accordingly, mandamus is issued to the respondents 1 to 2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Ranchi University in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of this Court referred to above. They are given three months time to pass final orders. There will be no order as to costs. "

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge while issuing the above direction, apart from other facts relied upon, a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 522/79 Sindeshwari Prasad Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others decided on 2-7-80. The graduate Laboratory Assistants in Musaffarpur Institute of Technology were directed to be paid UGC scales for the post of Demonstrator. The learned single Judge has also relied upon and elaborately quoted from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2530/93 by which Laboratory Instructors were accorded status of the demonstrators and that of the teaching staff. The learned single Judge held that the decision of the Supreme Court and that of the Division Bench in the case of Sindeshwari Prasad Singh (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As noted, earlier, ultimately a direction was given to State to decide the representation in the light of the aforesaid decisions. The learned single Judge had also observed about the qualifications of the appellants-Lab Assistants, most of whom are Ph. D in different subjects. It was also noted that the State Government had failed to file any counter-affidavit. The Ranchi University had filed its counter-affidavit indicating that it had recommended the cases of appellants to the State Government for taking a decision in the matter vide letter dated 1-10-1994.

( 4 ) IT appears that the State Government by order dated 18-11-1995 rejected the representation of the appellants-Lab Assistants which according to the appellants was not in accordance with the direction given by the learned single Judge. The appellants therefore filed a contempt petition No. MJC 508/95, it was allowed by order dated 25-3-1996 and the order rejecting the representation was set aside. The Government was required to take a decision afresh. The State Government, however again rejected the representation by order dated 4-5-1996. This gave rise to filing of the second writ petition namely C. W. J. C. No. 2176/96. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 3-4-1997 quashing the order dated 4-5-1996 passed by the State Government. The operative part of the order reads as under:"thus, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-13 is hereby quashed and the State Government is hereby asked by issuance of mandamus to treat the petitioners as teachers and give them all consequential benefits including promotional avenues, if there remains any technical difficulty in designating the petitioners as "demonstrators".

( 5 ) THE State Government preferred LPA No. 274/97 against the judgment and order dated 3-4-1997 passed by the learned singel Judge in C. W. J. C. No. 2176/96. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the judgme