Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 592 (PAT)

Anirudh Kant Das v. Magadh University

2008-04-11

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to the respondent-University for promoting him from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has relied upon Annexure-2, the order of the University dated 20.11.1987 which will go to show that the petitioner was granted promotion from the post of Demonstrator to the post, of Lecturer with effect from 5.3.1979. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that when his claim for time bound promotion had matured he has also filed a representation which was duly forwarded by the Principal of the College vide letter dated 22.6.1996 as contained in Annexure-3. The claim of the petitioner therefore is that the day he completed 18 years of service on the post of Lecturer, he ought to have been given such time bound promotion. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that as the deemed date of his promotion on the post of Lecturer is 5.3.1979, he having completed 18 years service on the post of Lecturer ought to have been given such time bound promotion on the post of Reader w.e.f. 5.3.1997. 3. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, has submitted that first of all this writ application is absolutely not maintainable on the ground of unexplained delay in moving this Court. He submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.1999 and this writ application claiming time bound promotion was filed on 21.12.2004 and that too without any explanation of the delay of nearly six years. He further submits that claim of the petitioner that he became entitled for promotion with effect from 5.3.1997 does not fit in with the case of the petitioner as stated in his representation filed by him on or before 26.2.1996 because if by that representation the petitioner had claimed promotion under the time bound scheme in the year 1996 itself, his subsequent plea of being entitled under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme after completion of 18 years w.e.f. 5.3.1997 is only an oral claim for which no demand was made by the petitioner before filing of this writ application. 4. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that as a matter of fact services of the petitioner were confirmed only after his retirement on 20.3.2002 and therefore there is no delay in filing of the writ application. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that claim for promotion of petitioner with retrospective effect under time bound scheme much after his retirement is not maintainable for two reasons, firstly long unexplained delay of six years and secondly not even disclosing the basic fact as to from which date he had become entitled for such time bound promotion. Apart from that, the facts mentioned in the writ application do not support the case of the petitioner. It is claimed that he had filed a representation for promotion under the time bound scheme on or before 26.2.1996 when according to the oral submission of the counsel of the petitioner, he became entitled for time bound promotion only on or after March, 1997 or June, 1997. That apart the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that it is only on the basis of order of confirmation that the petitioner could have claimed such time bound promotion is only to be noticed for its being rejected. Confirmation in service of the petitioner as done by order dated 22.3.2002 goes to show that the same was notified by the University confirming him on the post of Demonstrator and Lecturer w.e.f. 16.9.1964 and 25.6.1979 respectively. Thus the order of confirmation in service of the petitioner apparently has nothing to do with his claim of promotion under time bound scheme and therefore the delay of six years in filing of this writ application is not explained by the order of his confirmation in service. 6. This apart, his representation of the year 1996 goes to show that such a cause of action for claiming time bound promotion accrued to him at least eight years earlier and yet the writ application was filed in this Court on 21.12.2004. Added to all those there is no averment in the writ application that after he had completed eighteen years of service on the post of Lecturer on or after March 1997, he had made any demand before the University for being given time bound promotion. Added to all those there is no averment in the writ application that after he had completed eighteen years of service on the post of Lecturer on or after March 1997, he had made any demand before the University for being given time bound promotion. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be maintained in absence of a legal right and a demand made for enforcement of such legal right. The petitioner has also not annexed any representation in this regard claiming grant of such time bound promotion on completion of eighteen years of service on the post of Lecturer. The basis on which such time bound promotion is being claimed by the petitioner has also not been disclosed in the writ petition. 7. Thus this writ application seeking to raise a stale claim of time bound promotion of the year 1997 suffers from the vice of laches and delay and is not maintainable. Even on merit, such claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained due to want of the relevant materials/information. The petitioner in fact is himself not aware the date on which such time bound promotion became due to him and there are number of inherent contradictions in such claim of time bound promotion of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ application. Thus, the same must be and is hereby dismissed.