Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 378 (JHR)

Lal Mani Prasad v. Ranchi University

2003-03-25

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. Heard both sides. 2. The short case of the petitioner is that he was a reader and had completed 16 years of continuous service then as per the qualification for time bound promotion to the post of university professor under 16th years scheme of the Statutes he was given provisional promotion by the university to the post of university professor vide Annexure-1 with effect from 10.11.1986. It was categorically stated in that Annexure that the promotion is provisional and subject to the concurrence of the University Service Commission. Later on a new resolution was passed which enhanced the qualification for the post of university professor. This notification was issued in the year 1993. Then acting on this notification the Commission calculated the date of eligibility of the petitioner with effect from the date on which the petitioner produced a Ph. D. scholar and granted him promotion with effect from 12.7.1988. Therefore, the date of his promotion to the post of university professor was shifted to 12.7.1988 from 10.11.1986. 3. The main relief claimed in this writ is that the petitioners date of promotion to the post of university professor should be shifted to 10.11.1986 for the simple reason that the resolution of the year 1993 was found to be illegal in one of the judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 3409 of 1996 (R), against which S.L.P. had been filed but that finding of the Court was not interfered with. This means that the resolution, which was found to be illegal is not at all in existence and consequently the case of the petitioner should be judged on the basis of 16 years scheme of the Statutes which was in existence. 4. The learned counsel for the University has argued that the university is bound by the recommendation made by the Commission and the University at its own cannot grant promotion. The learned counsel for the University has further argued that since the promotion given by Annexure-1 was a provisional one so in absence of concurrence of the Commission this was not a promotion at all. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was never given promotion vide Annexure-1, and he was actually given promotion with effect from 12.7.1988 and that is on the basis of the recommendation of the commission. 5. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was never given promotion vide Annexure-1, and he was actually given promotion with effect from 12.7.1988 and that is on the basis of the recommendation of the commission. 5. The question is if the added qualification has been found to be illegal and that does not exist then in that circumstance whether the petitioners date or promotion would be counted with effect from 10.11.1986 or not. This in may view is a pure and simple question of law. If a particular qualification test was applied as per the resolution 1993 and that resolution was found to be illegal then there is no justification for applying the said qualification in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, without any hitch I hold that the petitioner has to be given promotion under the 16 years scheme of the Statutes and not according to the added qualification. If the petitioner completes 16 years of continuous service then under 16 years scheme of the Statutes his date of promotion should be the date from which he was given him as provisional promotion vide Annexure-1. Only legal difficulty coming in the way is that the University cannot grant promotion to the petitioner at its own unless the promotion is recommended by the Service commission. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation before the university and the same is pending before it, which has been denied by the learned counsel for the University. If the writ court finds a particular illegality other than the relief prayed before it in the prescribed format then in that circumstance the writ court can suo motu grant that relief and consequently it is directed that the petitioners date of promotion will be treated with effect from 10.11.1986 and not 12.7.1988 and the petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefit thereof with regard to seniority and other monetary benefits etc. 7. The writ is allowed at the stage of admission itself.