Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 328 (JHR)

Basudeo Singh v. Ranchi University

2009-03-03

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: 1. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in particular) to immediately and forthwith make necessary corrections and/or amendments in the notification in so far as it relates to the Department of History issued on 29.5.1997 under the seal and signature of the respondent No. 3 purporting to be under the orders of the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been confirmed at a date later than the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and whereby the petitioner has further been made junior to them, 2. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in particular) to immediately and forthwith issue a notification placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 4 to which he is lawfully and legally entitled as per the system of Roster specified in Statute No. V(b) of the Statutes dated 25.11.1980 which received and assent of the Chancellor on 19.11.1980, 3. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in particular) to immediately and forthwith declare the petitioner as senior to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 4. For quashing the Notification dated 17.5.1996 and 11.7.1997 issued by the respondent No. 3 in so far as it relates to the respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder he was given promotion to the post of Reader and University Professor with effect from 3. 1.1987 and 3.1.1995 respectively illegally and contrary to the Statute, 5. For quashing the Notification dated 24.2.1998 (a copy of which is not available with the petitioner because it was issued in a very secretive manner) and dated 4.7.1998 in so far as it relates to the respondent No. 7 whereby and whereunder, he was given promotion to the post of Reader and University Professor with effect from 7.7.1982 and 8.4.1987 respectively illegally and contrary to the Statute, 6. For a writ of mandamus and/or order and/or declaration declaring that the action of the respondent Nos. For a writ of mandamus and/or order and/or declaration declaring that the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in promoting and subsequently confirming the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Reader and University Professor are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 35(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. 7. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to show-cause before this Hon'ble Court as to how they could confirm the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the post of Reader and University Professor without taking into consideration that such post of a Reader or a University Professor is not sanctioned in the University and without taking into consideration that their promotion to these posts were on the basis of time bound promotion statutes which are mere upgradation and are not like appointment of direct recruit, 8. Rule NISI for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of certiorari commanding upon the respondents to certify and show-cause as to why the notifications is so far as it relates to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 confirming them on the post of Reader and University Professor be not quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court as they are contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in [1995]3SCR572 paragraph 41, 9. Consequently a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to immediately initiate action under Section 35(3) of the aforesaid Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and terminate the aforesaid promotions and confirmations of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed below respondent No. 6 whereas his confirmation is from 4.12.1981 and the respondent No. 6 is also from the same date. To support his contention he has referred to and relied upon Annexure-18 at page 114 which is a notification issued pursuant to the directives of the Chancellor contained in letter No. 176-OSD/G.S. (I) dated 17th December, 1982. 3. To support his contention he has referred to and relied upon Annexure-18 at page 114 which is a notification issued pursuant to the directives of the Chancellor contained in letter No. 176-OSD/G.S. (I) dated 17th December, 1982. 3. It will be evident on reading of the chart annexed thereto and also by reading the notification that these are notifications vide which the date of confirmation has been given effect to against their respective names including those who were in continuous service in the Ranchi University. Respondent No. 6 figures at serial No. 114 and has been shown that his date of joining was 3.1. 1979 whereas the date of confirmation has been reflected as 4.12.1981. The petitioner's name figures at Serial No. 144 and his date of joining and date of confirmation is on the same date 7.12.1981. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent No. 6 was working from a prior date in the University. 5. The learned Counsel for the University, Mr. A.K. Mehta, draws my attention to a direction issued by the Chancellor on the validity of statutes regarding appointment of teachers and officers and in particular he refers to Clause-3 which clearly records as under; It is, therefore, necessary to recast the panels prepared by the Selection Committee. While recasting the panels particular care should be taken to see: that the names of the suitable temporary teachers who have put in at least 12 months of continuous service on 31.12.1981 be placed in the order of their respective seniority above the freshers. The freshers should thereafter be placed in order of their merit.... 6. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 6 has put in 12 months of continuous service. It is also not in dispute that the validity of the aforesaid statute is not under challenge. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy as to what was his legal and or vested right to claim seniority prior to his date of joining which is 4.12.1981. The fact remains that he was not even born in the University prior to 4.12.1981 and thus the claim is clearly illegal and unsustainable. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.