Uday Singh v. Ranchi University — 1999 DIGILAW 128 (PAT)

Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. As the common points of law are involved in all the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners who were earlier promotion as University Professor on adhoc basis, they were reverted to the lower post i.e. Reader for one or other reason. Those orders of reversion contained in the Notification dated 4th June, 1997, have been challenged in those cases. The main ground shown in the impugned notification and as pleaded by the respondent is that the Screening Committee of the Ranchi University (University for short) has not recommended or Bihar Stat University (Constituent Colleges) Services Commission (Commission for short) did not recommend/reject the name of the petitioners for promotion as per the guideline of the University Grant Commission (U.G.C. for short). 3. To appreciate the cases, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts of the individual petitioners as shown hereunder: C.W.J.C. No. 2223 of 1997 (R)-Dr. Uday Singh (Petitioner): The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer of Zoology on 1st of September, 1973 (Annexure 1) which was affirmed by the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, vide order dated 20th August, 1977 with effect from 17th August, 1977 (Annexure 2) as direct recruit (Temporary Lecturer). He was promoted as Reader vide Notification dated 15th January, 1987. The petitioner on 26th September, 1989, applied for promotion as University Professor stating therein that he fulfills all the qualifications. After recommendation of the Screening Committee of the University, he was promoted as University Professor vide Notification dated 15th January, 1990 with effect from 4.9.1989, subject to the concurrence of the Commission. After such promotion, the petitioners service was confirmed as Lecturer with effect from 4th September, 1973 and concurrence was granted by the Commission as Reader vide order dated 18th December, 1995. By subsequent order dated 27th January, 1996, the University granted concurrence for promotion as Reader with effect from 4th September, 1986. According to the petitioner, the grant of salary to the post of Reader and then University Professor were also confirmed by the University by two orders dated 15th March, 1996 and 9th October, 1996 respectively. C.W.J.C. No. 1867/97(R): Dr. Binod Behari Lal: The petitioner in this case was appointed as Lecturer of Botany on 9th November, 1973 and posted in the Post Graduate Department of Botany of the University. C.W.J.C. No. 1867/97(R): Dr. Binod Behari Lal: The petitioner in this case was appointed as Lecturer of Botany on 9th November, 1973 and posted in the Post Graduate Department of Botany of the University. Subsequently, he was appointed on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission as Lecture with effect from 17th August, 1977 vide notification dated 19th October, 1977 and in pursuance of the said order, he joined in Ranchi College, Ranchi, under the University. The Screening Committee of the University recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion as a Reader on 12th November, 1986 in anticipation of the approval of the B.P.S.C. It followed by order dated 16th January, 1987 whereby he was promoted as a Reader of Botany. In the year 1989, by application dated 30th September, 1989, the petitioner applied for promotion to the post of University Professor which was forwarded whereinafter on the recommendation of the Screening Committee of the University, he was promoted as University Professor on 12th November, 1989, subject to the approval of the Commission. A notification to that effect was issued on 12th February, 1990, by the University granting promotion to the petitioner. The service of the petitioner was also confirmed as Lecturer with effect from 12th November, 1973 by notification dated 7th December, 1993. The promotion of this petitioner to the post of Reader with effect from 12th November, 1986, was approved by the Commission as intimated vide order dated 18th December, 1995 followed by notification for fixation of salary as Reader and then University Professor made vide orders dated 15th March, 1996 and 9th October, 1996 respectively. C.W.J.C. No. 2071 of 1997(R) : Pandey Himanshu Nath Roy: The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer of Geology in the year 1972 and was promoted to the post of Reader on 31st December, 1987 with affect from 1st February, 1985, subject to the approval of the Commission. While he was working as Temporary Reader, he was granted adhoc promotion to the post of University Professor on 12th January, 1990 with effect from 21st July, 1988, subject to the approval of the Commission. Initially his case having not been recommended for promotion as Reader, he was reverted as Lecturer vide Notification dated 13th February, 1993. Against that notification, the petitioner had to move before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1189 of 1993(R). Initially his case having not been recommended for promotion as Reader, he was reverted as Lecturer vide Notification dated 13th February, 1993. Against that notification, the petitioner had to move before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1189 of 1993(R). In that writ petition, the respondent took a plea that the Screening Committee which recommended the name of the petitioner was not properly constituted; there being no expert in the Committee of the subject. This Court, on hearing the parties, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on 23rd December, 1994 on the basis of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Patna University V/s. Awadh Kishore Prasad Yadav and ors. 1994 (2) PLJR (SC) 11. After the aforesaid judgment, the Commission has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion as Reader by letter dated 1st December, 1995 with effect from 1st of February, 1985 and notification to that effect was issued on 21st of December, 1995. His case was subsequently considered by the Screening Committee of the University for promotion to the post of University Professor but it was not recommended having found not eligible. 4. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners Clair and the respondents considered promotion to higher post of the University Professor on the basis of the time bound promotion scheme. Earlier cases of number of teachers of the University including the petitioners were considered for such time bound promotion and on the recommendation of the Screening Committee of the University, such persons were promoted as University Professor, subject to the approval of the Commission, As it was alleged that the Screening Committee was not prospered constituted it resulted in large scale reversion of the University teachers. A number of cases were preferred by person before this Court which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Patna University V/s. Awadh Kishore Prasad Yadav and Ors. (supra). It is for the said reason the cases of such teachers including the petitioners were recon sidered and their cases having not been recommended by the Screening Committee of the University or by the Commission or having found not eligible were reverted by the impugned notifications. 5. (supra). It is for the said reason the cases of such teachers including the petitioners were recon sidered and their cases having not been recommended by the Screening Committee of the University or by the Commission or having found not eligible were reverted by the impugned notifications. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners relied on one or other statement made in their affidavit, enclosures attached to such affidavits to show that the petitioners are qualified, fulfill other conditions and thereby eligible for promotion as University Professor under the time bound promotion scheme. The respondent in general has taken plea, as stated above Earlier, when the case was taken up by this Court, the Counsel for the University and the Commission were directed to address the Court relating to eligibility of one or other petitioner to find out as to whether one 01 other petitioner is eligible for promotion as University Professor or not Counsel for the University and the Commission could not assist the Court in proper manner in this respect. Simply it was stated that one or other petitioner was not found eligible. Later on it was accepted that the case of one of the petitioner (Dr. B.B. Lal) was not even considered on the ground that he had not applied for promotion. In respect of another petitioner (Dr. Uday Singh), it is stated that the Screening Committee found his not eligible. In the said proceeding, as was produced, no reason shown to hold such petitioner ineligible. So far as third petitioner (Dr. P.H.N. Roy, is concerned, even no document has been produced to find out as to whether the case of said petitioner was over considered or not and/of whether he was found to be not eligible. 6. On the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents should reconsider the cases of the petitioners for promotion as University Professor from their due date, in accordance with law. It the matter is required to be placed before the Screening Committee of the University, the same be placed and the recommendation, if any, be made to the Commission within a period of two months from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. It the matter is required to be placed before the Screening Committee of the University, the same be placed and the recommendation, if any, be made to the Commission within a period of two months from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. If such recommendation in respect of one or other petitioner is made by the Screening Committee, the Commission will consider the same whereinafter it will recommend the name of successful candidate to the University within a period of three months thereof. Appropriate notification, if so require, is to be is sued within 15 days from the date of receipt of such recommendation of the Commission. While considering the case, the Screening Committee/Commission are required to give reason if one or other petitioner is found ineligible for such promotion. Such reason is to be communicated to such person within the time schedule as stipulated above. Till final decision is taken in this respect, the University will allow the petitioners to function as University Professor who were so functioning just prior to impugned notification dated 4th June, 1997, but they will not be paid salary to the post of University Professor but of the next lower post which will be subject to the final decision as may be taken on the recommendation of the Commission. 7. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.