Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1234 (JHR)

Kiran Shukla v. Ranchi University

2003-10-13

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal. J. 1. In CWJC No. 3311/96 the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.1993 as contained in Annexure 2 series by which they have been reverted from the post of Reader to the post of Lecturer. In CWJC 548/97 the sole petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 10.1.1997 by which he has been reverted from the post of University Professor to the post of Reader. 2. The petitioners of CWJC 3311/96 were appointed on the post of Lecturers. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 16.11.1978, petitioner No. 2 on 12.8.1978, petitioner No. 3 on 9.1.1978, petitioner No. 4, on 2.9.1977, petitioner No. 5 on 23.2.1978 and petitioner No. 6 on 13,11.1992. In 1989 since the petitioners completed 10 years of continuous service as Lecturers, they were promoted to the post of Reader vide notification dated 1.9.1989. The said promotion was purely provisional subject to concurrence and approval of the Commission. However, the Commission considered the cases of all the petitioners and found that they were not possessing the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Readers from the post of Lecturers or to the post of Professor from the post of Reader. Accordingly, by the impugned notification they have been reverted to their substantive post of Lecturer. In CWJC No. 548/97 according to the submission of Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Vinobha Bhave University, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Screening Committee and was rejected as the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for promotion. Accordingly, the petitioner of CWJC 548/97 was reverted from the post of Professor to the post of Reader. 3. Admittedly the order of promotion was issued after 1.7.1977 under the promotion scheme. Even for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader the candidates must possess the qualification of M.Phil or Ph.D degree. 4. Mr. Abhisekh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Screening Committee did not find the petitioners eligible for promotion solely on the ground that they did not possess Ph.D degree although the Statute to that effect was amended by the State Government vide notification dated 12.10.1990 and according to that amendment Ph.D degree was not the eligibility criteria for time bound promotion to the persons who had completed 10 years of service as Lecturers and Reader. 5. 5. In CWJC No. 3311/96 a supplementary affidavit was filed by the University stating, inter alia, that during the pendency of the writ petitions the Commission accorded concurrence and approval for promotion of petitioner No. 1 from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader under the time bound promotion scheme. From perusal of Annexure 3 which is a letter dated 12.10.1990 issued from the office of the Chancellor it appears that some amendment was made in the Statute but that letter is neither legible nor is clear. It does not say about amendment with regard to promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader or from the post of Reader to the post of Professor. It is well settled that even for the purpose of time bound promotion specially for the teaching staff of the Educational Institutions, one must possess the requisite qualification. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order reverting the petitioners from the post of Readers to the post of Lecturer and from the post of Professor to Reader. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ranchi University submitted that the case of all these petitioners have already been recommended for promotion. Mr. Abhisekh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to inform this Court whether the petitioners have already been given promotion. M/s. Sumir Prasad, R. Krishna, P. Kumar and Mrs. Sheela Prasad who are advocates on records have not taken pain to assist the Court in coming to a right decision, 7. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Mehta I do not find any merit in these writ applications which are, accordingly, dismissed.