Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 983 (JHR)

Nanda Ghosh v. Ranchi University

2006-08-01

M.Y.EQBAL

body2006
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this case the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately implement the order and direction of this Court passed on 16.12.1999 in CWJC No. 2104 of 1997 (R) and further to promote the petitioner as University Professor from the due date in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Ranchi University and joined one of its constituent College i.e. Ranchi Womens College on 14.11.1972. She did her Ph.D. from Ranchi University on 3.11.1985 and subsequently she was promoted to the post of Reader on 14.11.1985. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of University Professor on 14.11.1988 under the statute as approved by the Chancellor vide letter No. BSU-27/85-4032 GS (1) dated 24.12.1986. It is contended that under the said statute Reader possessing qualification of University prescribed by the University Grant Commission serving in a University Department or in a degree college and at least completed 16 years of continuous service as Lecturer/Reader shall on recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission be promoted to the post of University Professor. 3. Petitioners case is that she possesses requisite qualification of University Professor as per the University Grant Commission and had completed 16 years of continuous service in one degree college of the Ranchi University was given promotion to the post of University Professor. After the above promotion, petitioner discharged her duty as University Professor for about 9 years to the full satisfaction of the authorities concerned. However, on 4.6.1997 a notification was issued by the respondents through which the petitioner and others were reverted from the University Professor to the post of Reader without any sufficient reason/cause and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, petitioner and 12 others challenged the aforesaid notification before the Honble Court in CWJC No. 2104 of 1997 with a direction to the respondents/University to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of University Professor. Accordingly, petitioner submitted representation to the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi requesting to take immediate steps by directing the concerned official to transmit their names forthwith to the Commission so that a formal notification can be issued promotion them to the post of University Professor but till date no decision has been taken. 4. Accordingly, petitioner submitted representation to the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi requesting to take immediate steps by directing the concerned official to transmit their names forthwith to the Commission so that a formal notification can be issued promotion them to the post of University Professor but till date no decision has been taken. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/University, it is stated that in view of provisions contained in Jharkhand State University (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force with effect from 6.5.2003, promotion of teachers is to be made only on the recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Respondents further case is that the Screening Committee to screen teachers for promotion is to be properly constituted and has to apply its mind before sending its opinion to the Commission. It is stated that on creation of State of Jharkhand, the Chancellor of University was required to prepare a panel of experts who were to be members of the Screening Committee. 5. I have heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the University. 6. As noticed above, in 1997 petitioner along with 12 others filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2104/1997(R) seeking their promotion to the post of University Professor and the writ petition was disposed of on 16.12.1999 by passing the following order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on the application at flag R dated 13.12.1999 In which prayer has been made by the petitioners for disposal of the writ application on the ground that the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWJC No. 3409/96(R) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6246/1999. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University has no objections to the prayer made by the petitioners. However, Mr. Anwar learned Counsel appearing for the Commission, submitted that the writ application may be disposed of but with a direction to ? the University to consider the case of the petitioners separately and to pass appropriate order. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 4.6.1997 as contained in Annexure-3 by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of University Professor to the post of Reader and further for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the said notification. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 4.6.1997 as contained in Annexure-3 by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of University Professor to the post of Reader and further for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the said notification. From perusal of the notification, it appears that the ground of passing such order is that Screening Committee of the Ranchi University has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. It appears that the impugned notification was also challenged by the other teachers in CWJC No. 2223/97R and this Court in terms of the judgment dated 19th February, 1999 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for promotion as University Professor from their due date in accordance with law. It further appears that in similar circumstances I have disposed of CWJC No. 3409/96 R in terms of the judgment dated 29th August, 1997 whereby the writ application was allowed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the University, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the cases of the petitioners for promotion as University Professor from their due date in accordance with law. If the matter is required to be placed before the Screening Committee of the University the same may be placed and the recommendation, if any be made to the commission within a period of two months from the date of receipt 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 and shall recommend the name of successful candidates to the University within a period of three months thereafter. Appropriate notification if so require, is to be issued within 15 days from the date of receipt of such recommendation of the Commission. The respondents while considering the case of the petitioners shall also take into consideration, the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2223/97 (R) and also the judgment passed in CWJC No. 3409/96 (R) together with the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6246/99. 7. On 17.3.2005 when this matter was heard, Mr. The respondents while considering the case of the petitioners shall also take into consideration, the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2223/97 (R) and also the judgment passed in CWJC No. 3409/96 (R) together with the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6246/99. 7. On 17.3.2005 when this matter was heard, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the matter with regard to the petitioner is still under consideration and it is to be considered by the Screening Committee. It is further submitted that since member of the Screening Committee could not be nominated, the matter has not been taken up. On the submission made by the learned Counsel, the case was adjourned to 15.4.2005 with a direction to the University to pursue the matter with the Chancellor for nomination of the expert, so that the earlier direction issued by this Court in CWJC No. 2104/1997 (R) can be complied with. 8. On 27.4.2005 a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the University stating inter alia, that the Screening Committee screened the cases of the petitioner and 10 others of Zoology Department, which were pending consideration. It was submitted by Mr. A.K. Mehta, that the Screening Committee did not recommend cases of petitioner and other candidates. Mr. Mehta was, therefore, directed to produce the entire record relating to screening of the candidates including petitioner. Pursuant to the order, one sheet of paper of the Screening Committee by which case of the petitioner and others were not recommended has been produced before this Court. The said proceeding of the meeting of the Screening Committee is reproduced herein below: RANCHI UNIVERSITY Proceeding of the Screening for Promotion from Reader to University Professor under 16/25 years Time Bound Statute Subject-Zoology Date 11.4.2005. Proceeding of the meeting of the Screening Committee in Zoology held on 11.4.2005 at Vice-Chancellors Residential Office, Ranchi. Members Present 1. Vice-Chancellor, Professor S.S. Kushwaha/ 2. Dean Faculty of Science, Professor G.D. Mishra 3. Head of the Department of Zoology. Dr. M. Firoz Ahmad. 4. Expert I Professor K.B. Sharma, Department of Zoology Magadh University, Body Gaya. 5. Expert II Professor M. Raziuddin Department of Zoology, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. The Committee met to consider the cases for promotion from Reader to University Professor under 16/25 years. Time Bound Promotion Statute of the following: Sl. No. Name Date of Promotion 1. Dr. 4. Expert I Professor K.B. Sharma, Department of Zoology Magadh University, Body Gaya. 5. Expert II Professor M. Raziuddin Department of Zoology, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. The Committee met to consider the cases for promotion from Reader to University Professor under 16/25 years. Time Bound Promotion Statute of the following: Sl. No. Name Date of Promotion 1. Dr. Nanda Ghosh No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 2. Dr. Udai Singh No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 3. Dr. N.D. Goswami No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 4. Dr. N.K. Prasad cases at SI. No. 4 (Dr. N.K. Prasad) and No. 5 (Ms. Malaneha Ghosh) have already been screened and sent to the commission for consideration. Hence, not considered. Cases not considered in Screening. 5. Ms. Malaneha Cases of SI. No. 4 (Dr. N.K. Prasad Ghosh and No. 5 (Ms. Malaneha Ghosh) have already been screened and sent to the commission for consideration. Hence not considered. Cases not considered in screening. 6. Dr. Y.V. Jha No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended, 7. Dr. Madan Gupta No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended, 8. Dr. Shiv Prasad No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 9. Dr. Ravindra No evidence of successful guidance Singh of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 10. Dr. Abhijit Dutta No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. 11. Dr. Sunita Dutta No evidence of successful guidance of research work prior to 23.9.1995. Not recommended. Sd/- Expert (I), Sd/- Expert (II), Sd/- Head of the Department of Zoology, Sd/- Dean of faculty of Science, Sd/- Vice Chancellor. 9. The duty of the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of recommendation has been fully discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Patna University and Ors. v. Awadh Kishore Pd. Yadav and Ors. 1994 (Suppl) 2 SCC 250. It is held that the Screening Committee is to be properly constituted and has to apply its mind to different cases before sending its opinion to the Commission. It is not merely an empty formality. v. Awadh Kishore Pd. Yadav and Ors. 1994 (Suppl) 2 SCC 250. It is held that the Screening Committee is to be properly constituted and has to apply its mind to different cases before sending its opinion to the Commission. It is not merely an empty formality. The Screening Committee cannot mechanically recommend or reject cases of the candidates who have requisite qualifications and complete the required number of years of service. 10. In the judgment and order passed in CWJC No. 2104 of 1997 (R), a very clear and specific direction was given that the Screening Committee, so constituted shall consider the cases of each candidates by taking into consideration academic qualification, experience, etc. and while considering the case, the Screening Committee shall also take into consideration the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6246 of 1999. 11. In order to find out whether the Screening Committee has discharged their duties in accordance with law, Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the University was directed to produce the entire record of Screening Committee, but I am sorry to say that a sheet of paper has been produced. The extract of the sheet has been reproduced herein above, I fail to understand the reason for non-production of the original record of the proceeding and for that I have no option but to draw adverse inference that the Screening Committee has not discharged their duty fairly and in accordance with law. From perusal of the minutes of the Screening Committee, prima facie, it appears that they have rejected the claim of the petitioner mechanically. I, therefore, hold that the Screening Committee has failed to apply their mind and took the decision in utter disregard of the direction given in CWJC No. 2104 of 1997 (R) and also without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6246 of 1999 and the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 2223/97(R) and CWJC No. 3409/96(R). The decision of the Screening Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the decision of the Screening Committee is set aside with a direction to the respondents, particularly Screening Committee, to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as University Professor in accordance with law. The decision of the Screening Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the decision of the Screening Committee is set aside with a direction to the respondents, particularly Screening Committee, to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as University Professor in accordance with law. Before parting with the order, I observe that in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 2104 of 1997 (R), the order and direction was issued on 16.12.1999 to comply the same within two months, but the order and direction has been complied with after six years. This Court hope and trust that the same disregard and disrespect of the Courts order may not be repeated again, otherwise appropriate order shall be passed if the direction given hereinabove, is not complied with within three months from today.