Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1975 (JHR)

Madhu Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-17

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in communication No. B/1085/11 dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure-13) issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, whereby and where under, the claim of the petitioner for granting the consequential benefits along with seniority with effect from 28.02.2008 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to release the entire arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.02.2008 to till 07.09.2010, for the period on which the petitioner has illegally been deprived from being appointed to the post of Lecturer in English as also the seniority to be counted w.e.f. 28.02.2008. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that earlier she had approached this Court in W.P.(C) 1718 of 2009 for getting appointment on the post of Lecturer in English, which was denied by the respondents despite having more marks than the last selected candidate in her subject. In W.P.(C) No. 1718 of 2009 it was an specific observation of co-ordinate Bench of this Court that "JPSC will recommend the name of the petitioner to Ranchi University for the post of English Lecturer in General Category within two weeks from today and after that as per the affidavit of Ranchi University, it will accommodate and appoint the petitioner for the vacant seat in General Category among 11 vacancies shown by them after receiving the recommendation." 3. Again when she was declared successful on the intervention of Court, in absence of any specific direction of the JPSC, the Ranchi University has accepted the joining of the petitioner on 07.09.2010. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that though it was admitted by the Commission that a mistake has cropped up in not recommending the name of the petitioner and in view of the orders of this Court, the petitioner was fully entitled for appointment/joining from 28.02.2008, but as the case of the petitioner was recommended by the JPSC on 03.08.2010, the said recommendation of JPSC is brought into the notice by the petitioner, by way of this writ application and the same needs to be rectified and recommendation be made retrospectively w.e.f. 28.02.2008 in place of 07.09.2010. 5. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 10.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 30.10.2017, the JPSC has come out with a rectification of date of recommendation for the appointment of Dr. 5. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 10.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 30.10.2017, the JPSC has come out with a rectification of date of recommendation for the appointment of Dr. Madhu Mishra to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in English and accordingly, a corrigendum dated 03.11.2017 was issued wherein, date of recommendation has been rectified/modified from 03.08.2010 to 28.02.2008. Thereafter, a direction was given to the respondent-University to modify the date of joining/appointment of the petitioner. 6. Today, when the case was called out, though no affidavit has been filed by the respondent-university to that effect but Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that though no affidavit has been filed but in compliance of the earlier orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, the University has issued a notification bearing Memo No. RU/L/45/17 dated 16.11.2017, which is taken on record, which clearly speaks that the date of appointment of Dr. Madhu Mishra, Lecturer/Assistant Professor in English, Doranda College, Ranchi is modified notionally from 07.09.2010 to 28.02.2008, subject to the outcome of LPA filed by the Commission against the order dated 10.08.2017 read with order dated 31.08.2017 and 20.09.2017. Actual date of her joining in Ranchi University shall remain same. Learned counsel further argues that as the order passed by this Court has been fully complied with, nothing remains for redressal. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the documents on records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed/joining on 28.02.2008 and not on 07.09.2010. From perusal of the documents, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not at fault for giving her joining on 07.09.2010 rather she was fully entitled for appointment/joining on 28.02.2008 like others, who were recommended by the JPSC. It was due to the laches on the part of the Commission that the petitioner had to knock the door of Hon'ble High Court for her appointment and it is on the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court that she was recommended for appointment by the JPSC, for which she was nowhere responsible. 8. After order of this Court, JPSC has accepted its fault and recommended for shifting the date of recommendation from 07.09.2010 to 28.02.2008 and accordingly, a notification to that extent was issued by the University as well on 16.11.2017. 9. 8. After order of this Court, JPSC has accepted its fault and recommended for shifting the date of recommendation from 07.09.2010 to 28.02.2008 and accordingly, a notification to that extent was issued by the University as well on 16.11.2017. 9. In view of the rectified recommendation and in view of the fact that the said corrigendum has been accepted by the University and a notification to that extent has been issued vide notification dated 16.11.2017, the impugned order dated 01.11.2013 at Annexure 13 to the writ petition is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 10. Needless to say if the petitioner files a fresh representation regarding consequential benefits as a result of the quashment of the order dated 01.11.2013, the respondents shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. I.A. No. 6506 of 2017 and I.A No. 8323 of 2017 also stand disposed of.