Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 200 (JHR)

Rita Kumari v. Bihar College Service

2012-02-07

P.P.BHATT

body2012
Order Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers. 2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for issuance of direction upon the' respondents to strictly follow and implement the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna issued vide memo no. 1892 dated 16.2.2002 and appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer of Political Science in Ran Bijay Smarak College,Chas, Bokaro. It is further prayed for quashing the appointment of the respondent no. 4, who is illegally appointed on the post of Lecturer of Political Science by Governing Body of the College ignoring the guidelines issued by the University as well as Bihar College Service Commission. It is also prayed that necessary directions may be issued to the Respondent-University for strict compliance of the direction of the University taken in the meeting of the Syndicate on 24.11.1998. It is further prayed that necessary direction be issued to the respondent no. 5 that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 may not be formally approved as the same is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Syndicate. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer of Political Science in pursuance to the advertisement given by the Bihar College Service Commission Patna publish 3d on 31.8.1998. It is submitted that the applicant was called for interview on 22.6.2001 and thereafter his name was recommended" for appointment to the post of Lecture (Political Science) in Ran Bijay Smarak College, Chas, Bokaro by the Bihar College Service Commission, vide its recommendation dated 16th February, 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission, the petitioner has not been given appointment, rather respondent no. 4 has been appointment on the post in question though he was much below than the petitioner in the merit list. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have acted arbitrarily in respect of the appointment of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer of Political Science. It is further submitted that as per decision taken in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 24.11.1998 for appointment to the post of Lecturer preference was required to be given to the person as per seniority described in the merit list. It is further submitted that as per decision taken in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 24.11.1998 for appointment to the post of Lecturer preference was required to be given to the person as per seniority described in the merit list. However, according to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 has been given appointment in clear contravention to the aforesaid resolution passed by the syndicate of the Respondent-University. 4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 while referring the counter affidavit tiled by the respondent No. 5 submitted that advertisement was published prior to formation of the new State of Jharkhand and the recommendation was made by the Bihar College Service Commission on 16th February, 2002 i.e. subsequent to the formation of the new State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 also submitted that on 5th October, 2001 under the Direction of His Excellency Governor of the Jharkhand, all the Vice-Chancellors of the University in the State of Jharkhand were informed that the recommendation received from the Bihar College Service Commission, after creation of the State of Jharkhand, are not binding to be acted upon by the Universities of the Jharkhand. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has also invited the attention to the Annexure-A/1 of the counter affidavit and submitted, that as per notification dated 10th September, 2001, the process of appointment, after 15th November, 2000 in various Universities within the State of Jharkhand, would be done by the State of Jharkhand and any recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission or Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna will not be recognized, if it was received after 14.11.2000. The said notification was made applicable with effect from 15th November, 2000. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, the recommendation with regard to appointment made by the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna on 16th February, 2002 will not be binding upon the respondent No.5 as well as the Governing Body of the affiliated college. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the respondent no. 4 has not been given appointment as per recommendation received from the Bihar College Service Commission. It is submitted that the respondent no. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the respondent no. 4 has not been given appointment as per recommendation received from the Bihar College Service Commission. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 was appointed on temporary basis in the year 1993 and therefore, Governing Body of Ran Bijay Smarak College, Chas, Bokaro thought it fit to continue till regular recruitment is made. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 submitted that neither any illegality nor arbitrariness has been committed by the University as well as the Governing Body of the said College. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 submitted that the name of the respondent no. 4 was also recommended by the Bihar College Service Commission on 16.2.2002 alongwith the name of the petitioner but hi appointment has not been done in pursuance to the said recommendation. It is submitted that in fact, respondent no. 4 was appointed way back in the year 1993 by the Governing Body of Ran Bijay Smarak College, Chas, Bokaro affiliated by the Vinoba Bhawe University, Hazaribagh. It is sub-mitted that the respondent no. 4 was appointed on temporary basis and the same is continued till date. 6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the papers it appears that the post in question was advertised by the Bihar College Service Commission as per requisition made by the Governing Body of Ran Bijay Smarak College, Chas, Bokaro in the year 1998. It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 applied for the post in question and thereafter they were called for interview in the year 2001 and their names were recommended on 16th February, 2002 for appointment of the said post in question. It is pertinent to note that in between the State of Jharkhand was formed and by virtue of the decision taken by His Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand, all the Vice-Chancellors of the University within the State of Jharkhand were intimated by communication dated 5.10.2001 that as per meeting held on 17.8.2001 at Raj Bhawan it was resolved that recommendation received from the Bihar College Service Commission, after creation of new State of Jharkhand, are not binding to be acted upon by the State of Jharkhand. The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhu Kanhu University etc. vs. Dr. Arjun Prasad Sinha reported in 2003(4) JCR 1 [: 2003(4) JLJR 218 ] wherein it was observed:- "We also find considerable force in the submission of counsel for the University that a mere inclusion in the select list or based solely on a recommendation made by the University, no right to appointment is conferred on the writ petitioner. It was open to the Government of Jharkhand not to accept the recommendation of the Commission and at best it may have to place its reasons for doing so before the State Legislature. " Further observed:- "In view of our conclusion that the Service Commission could not proceed with the selection after the request was withdrawn by the University and that the recommendation made on 6.3.2002 could not be honoured, in view of the order of the Governor, Annexure-10 and in the light of the relevant provisions of the Reorganization Act, 2000, the decision of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has to be dismissed. Hence, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss W.P.(S) No. 6084 of 2002. We make no order as to costs." 7. I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. In the light of the decision taken by His Excellency the Governor of the State of Jharkhand, after bifurcation of the State which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid, the petitioner is not having any case and he cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be appointed on the post in question. Moreover, it appears from the documents annexed with the counter affidavit by the respondent no. 4 that he was appointed absolutely temporary basis in the year 1993 and his temporary appointment has been ordered to be continued till date. Therefore, there is no question of appointment on regular basis as per recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission vide its recommendation dated 16th February, 2002. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent no. 4 has been appointed though he was junior to the petitioner in the merit list, is baseless and without any substance. Therefore, there is no question of appointment on regular basis as per recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission vide its recommendation dated 16th February, 2002. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent no. 4 has been appointed though he was junior to the petitioner in the merit list, is baseless and without any substance. It appears that after bifurcaticon of the State of Jharkhand post in question has not been advertised till date and therefore, in respect of the public employment a fair procedure is required to be followed by following requisite rules and regulation applicable for appointment. Therefore, it is expected that the post of Lecturer of Political Science will be advertised and eligible candidates will be given an opportunity to compete for appointment against such post. The appointment of the respondent no. 4, which is made on temporary basis, cannot be made permanent without following due process for appointment. It is expected that selection and appointment process in accordance with law will be undertaken within reasonable time by the respondent-University as well as Governing Body of the College. 8. With aforesaid observation this writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to cost.