Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3 (JHR)

Bhasker Manuvansh v. Vinoba Shave University

2010-01-04

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order I.A. No. 3302 of 2006 file by the petitioner has been pressed for hearing today. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had originally prayed in this writ application for an order directing the respondents to cancel the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Lecturers in the Department of Political Science in the P.T.P.S. College, Patratu. During the pendency of this writ application, the respondent University has issued a notification (Annexure-13) whereby the appointment granted to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has been declared to be approved. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner needs also to challenge the aforesaid notification since it confirms the appointment given to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and such appointment has already been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and counsel for the respondent University would object to the prayer for amendment on the ground that the petitioner has no legs to stand and in fact the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally suppressed material facts which otherwise would have rendered the prayer of the petitioner as not maintainable itself. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to inform by reference to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent University that a High Powered Committee constituted by the University has scrutinized the entire matter relating to the petitioner's grievance in respect of appointment granted to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and had declared that the appointment granted to them was in fact correct and proper since it was based upon the recommendation of the Commission. The High Powered Committee has also considered the other aspects namely that in the recommendation of the Commission, the petitioner's name was not mentioned. Rather, the names of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 only were mentioned. It is further submitted that the petitioner came much later into picture some time in the year 1999 whereas the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been working albeit, on temporary appointment, ever since 1980 and 1983 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would want to explain further that the statements made on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been working albeit, on temporary appointment, ever since 1980 and 1983 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would want to explain further that the statements made on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are in fact misleading as because in the first recommendation made by the Commission, the petitioner was recommended as the first candidate against the first post and this has been conveniently ignored and by illegal means, a second recommendation from the Commission was invited and acted upon by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. 7. Be that as it may, the prayer for amendment in the original application is confined to the addition of a further prayer challenging the notification issued by the Respondent University by which the appointment granted to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has been confirmed. I am satisfied that the additional prayers would not alter or change in any manner the nature of the original reliefs claimed for by the petitioner in the original writ application. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has challenged the very appointment of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the impugned order of confirmation is only an extension of the order of appointment which is already under challenge. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the prayer for amendment as mentioned in para 7 of the Interlocutory Application is allowed. The I.A. shall form part of the original writ application. 9. As regards the merits of the case, it appears that there are contentious issues involved in this case which needs a detailed and extensive hearing. 10. In view of the above facts, this case is admitted for hearing. 11. Let this case be posted for hearing before an appropriate Bench on appropriate date. 12. The parties will be at liberty to pray for an early date of hearing.