Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1577 (JHR)

Sukhdeo Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
ORDER : Heard. 2. Whether a teacher of an affiliated college who was not granted permanent approval by Bihar College Service Commission stands absorbed in service from the date the college became a constituent college of the university or from the date of his initial appointment, is the question raised in the writ petition. 3. Briefly stated, petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 31.07.1985 as lecturer in Hindi and petitioner no.2 was appointed on 24.04.1985 on the post of lecturer in the department of English. They assert that they were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts. Pursuant to the decision of the State of Bihar contained in notification dated 19.08.1986 informations were collected from affiliated colleges for taking over of all the colleges as constituent college. 30.04.1986 was the cutoff date on which if appointment was made on sanctioned vacant post or proposal for creation of additional posts on which appointment was made was forwarded by the affiliated colleges to the University and such proposals were pending with the government as on 30.04.1986, all teaching and non-teaching employees of affiliated colleges were to be absorbed. A threemen committee was constituted by the State government for undertaking a similar exercise, however, in the meantime a vigilance enquiry was initiated on the allegations that several appointments were made illegally after the State government took decision on 19.08.1986 to take over all the affiliated colleges. The State government terminated services of all such employees in the affiliated colleges which were taken over in the 4th phase and the matter was taken to the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995. In the proceeding of Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.10.2001 One Man Enquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal, retired Judge of Supreme Court was appointed to ascertain total number of sanctioned posts of teachers and non-teaching employees in all 40 affiliated colleges which were taken over as constituent colleges in the 4th phase and also to find out proposals for creation of additional posts of teachers and non-teaching employees on or before 30.04.1986 and other related issues in respect of absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that in notification dated 12.03.2005 issued by Vinoba Bhave University under which Adarsh College, Raj Dhanwar came after bifurcation of the Ranchi University, they were found working prior to 30.04.1986. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that in notification dated 12.03.2005 issued by Vinoba Bhave University under which Adarsh College, Raj Dhanwar came after bifurcation of the Ranchi University, they were found working prior to 30.04.1986. Grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of their appointment on a post which was sanctioned prior to 30.04.1986 they were absorbed in service w.e.f. 30.10.1986 and not from the date of their initial appointment. 5. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the subject-wise list prepared by Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission (vide Annexure-6) whereunder petitioner no. 1 has been shown appointed on a sanctioned post on 31.07.1985 and petitioner no. 2 has been shown appointed on a sanctioned post on 24.04.1985 and the list of teaching staff who were found eligible for absorption (vide Annexure-10) whereunder the petitioners have allegedly been shown absorbed from the date of their initial appointment, contends that fixation of an artificial date, that is, 30.10.1986 for absorption is arbitrary. It is contended that the petitioners who were appointed on permanent sanctioned vacant posts must be held absorbed from the date of their initial appointment and while so, they are entitled for promotion to the post of Reader under the Time Bound Promotion scheme. 6. The learned State counsel and for the respondent-University have seriously controverted the claim of the petitioners. 7. The dispute which arose after the decision taken by the Government of Bihar on 19.08.1986 involved absorption of about 4000 employees working on teaching and non-teaching posts in 40 affiliated colleges which were taken over in the 4th phase as constituent colleges under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Committees were appointed and on its recommendations, decision to provisionally absorb teachers against sanctioned and recommended posts was taken, however, subsequently on the allegation that a large number of employees got surreptitious entry into the service in the erstwhile affiliated colleges in connivance with the governing body of the colleges, the State government had a rethinking on the decision to absorb teaching and non-teaching employees. It appears that the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned posts, however, in their cases the Bihar College Service Commission had granted temporary concurrence only. It appears that the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned posts, however, in their cases the Bihar College Service Commission had granted temporary concurrence only. It is not in dispute that the teachers who were appointed with permanent concurrence of the Commission on the posts which stood sanctioned prior to 30.04.1986 were absorbed w.e.f. the respective dates and the teachers who were appointed without concurrence or temporary concurrence of the Commission were absorbed w.e.f. the date of taking over of the colleges by the State government. The aforesaid criteria has been applied in all 40 colleges and to all teaching and non-teaching employees. A distinction has been made between the teachers who were appointed prior to cutoff date with permanent concurrence of the Commission and those who were appointed without concurrence or temporary concurrence of the Commission. The classification made by the university is reasonable and it cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust. 8. The contention that had the college been taken over after few years, the petitioners also could have received permanent concurrence of the Commission and while so, they also would have become eligible for absorption w.e.f. 30.04.1986 is a hypothetical argument without substance. Claim of the petitioners for absorption must be considered on the facts which existed as on the cutoff date. It needs to be recorded that in the proceeding before the Supreme Court in “State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and Others” (Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997) a large number of impleadment/intervention applications were filed. The petitioners were not applicants before the Supreme Court. The decision in the said case reported in (2005) 9 SCC 219 reflects that the report of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission was accepted and all objections against the said report were rejected. A teacher appointed on sanctioned post, however, working without permanent concurrence of the Commission as on 30.04.1986 cannot claim to be a permanent employee of the affiliated college in which he was appointed. The petitioners, about 10 years after the notification of their absorption was issued on 12.03.2005, have approached this Court with a grievance that they must be absorbed from the date of initial appointment. The petitioners, about 10 years after the notification of their absorption was issued on 12.03.2005, have approached this Court with a grievance that they must be absorbed from the date of initial appointment. As noticed above, the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria of permanent concurrence as on the cutoff date, that is, on 30.04.1986 and therefore, date of their absorption has rightly been fixed as on 30.10.1986, which is the date of taking over of the college by the State as a constituent college of Vinoba Bhabe University. Apparently, petitioners' case is also not covered under the Statutes for regularisation of the service of purely temporary lecturers appointed on or before 28.02.1982. 9. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioners cannot claim promotion to the post of Reader under the Time Bound Promotion scheme, taking their initial appointment as the date of their absorption in service. Accordingly, this prayer is also rejected. 10. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.