Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 64 (JHR)

Md. Abdullah v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-09

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, D.N.PATEL

body2018
ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 9685 of 2017 : The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 38 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this L.P.A. No. 191 of 2017. 3. This Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 191 of 2017 : 1. By consent of the learned counsels for both the sides, this Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P. (S) No. 6195 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25th January, 2017 whereby, his claim/prayer for change of date of absorption into the service on the post of Lecturer from 9.5.1988 to 28.2.1981 was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner. He was appointed as a Lecturer in the subject of Urdu in Chas College, Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. Thereafter, this college was taken over along with several other colleges by the Government and the question of absorption was raised by several Lecturers. It appears that coming events cross their shadow before. Prior discussions and public opinion was gathered for affiliation and lots of manipulation and extrapolation have been done in the records of the concerned colleges. Falsehood is embroidery of truth. It was very difficult to segregate truth from falsehood. Matters were filed in Courts and reached up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the form of Special Leave Petitions which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 in which for fact finding, retired Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission was instituted. 5. It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the counsels for both the sides that Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission has given the report, abstract thereof is at page No. 83 of this compilation (Annexure-10). 5. It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the counsels for both the sides that Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission has given the report, abstract thereof is at page No. 83 of this compilation (Annexure-10). The relevant part of the said report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission reads as under : Teaching Staff who are eligible to be considered for Absorption Number of Post sanctioned subject-wise Name of the Teacher Date of eligibility Date of Appointment Nature of Appointment … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Political Science 5 … … … … Psychology 3 … … … … Mathematics 3 … … … … English 3 … … … … Urdu 2 1. Ms. Samima Khatoon 12.1.1985 12.1.1985 2. Sri Md. Abdullah 9.5.1988 27.2.1981 Sociology 3 … … … … .. … … … … … … … … … (Emphasis supplied). 6. On the basis of the aforesaid report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, an order was passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 on 12.10.2004 whereby, the fact finding report given by Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission was accepted. 7. Thus, the report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission has become part and parcel of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 order dated 12.10.2004. As per this order, it is evident that this appellant (original petitioner) was not having consistently good academic record which was one of the requirements for the appointment on the post of Lecturer as he had not obtained aggregate 50% marks in two previous examinations as required under 1978 statutes of the concerned University. The second thing pointed out by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, so far as present appellant is concerned, that he was not having high second class in a Post Graduation Examination and he had secured 50.2% marks, thirdly, it is mentioned by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission that this appellant had secured M.A. Degree with 58.6% marks on July 27th, 1981. He became eligible for consideration on May 9th, 1988. For the ready reference, the abstract of the report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, so far as Chas College, Chas, district Bokaro, Jharkhand reads as under : "…………. (xi) Sri Md. He became eligible for consideration on May 9th, 1988. For the ready reference, the abstract of the report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, so far as Chas College, Chas, district Bokaro, Jharkhand reads as under : "…………. (xi) Sri Md. Abdulla was appointed as Lecturer in Urdu by order dated February 27, 1981. On the date of appointment he did not have a consistently good academic record inasmuch as he had not obtained an aggregate of 50% marks in two previous examinations as required under the 1978 statutes, which were applicable. He also did not have high second class Post Graduation qualification having secured 50.2% marks. He obtained M.A. Degree with 58.6% marks on July 27, 1991. He became eligible for consideration on May 9, 1988." (Emphasis supplied). 8. Thus, the aforesaid observations which are factual have been accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and no review application or curative application has been preferred by this appellant before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P. (S) No. 6195 of 2015 preferred by this appellant. 9. It further appears, from the facts of the case, as I argued out by the counsels for the both the sides, that there were still few Lecturers who were dissatisfied even after the report given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission. For these dissatisfied souls, again the direction was given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and one more Commission was appointed of retired Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha. 10. Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission had again entered into the same fact finding exercise. Before this 2nd Commission also this appellant had approached. In fact, there was no reason for this appellant to approach Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission because he was not a left out candidate. On the contrary, he was considered and his case was rejected by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission so far his so called date of absorption i.e. 28th February, 1981 is concerned. Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission had already assigned the reasons and the date of regularistion which is 9.5.1988. Despite these facts and though the 2nd Commission was not meant for this appellant, unnecessary also this appellant approached Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission. 11. Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission took the same view than what has taken by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission. Despite these facts and though the 2nd Commission was not meant for this appellant, unnecessary also this appellant approached Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission. 11. Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission took the same view than what has taken by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission. As per Annexure-8 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, the observation of Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission reads as under : "In that view of the matter Justice Agrawal Commission had refused to entertain those Claim Petitions. Following the same, this Commission also in its order dated 11.07.2014 opined that these Claim Petitions are not maintainable in as much as it was accepted at the bar that the larger Bench has not yet delivered its judgment. It was furthermore observed that the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Shiv Pd. case (supra), is binding on this Commission. Keeping in view of order dated 11.7.2014 these Claim Petitions are dismissed with similar observations." (Emphasis supplied). 12. In view of this Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission also, the date of absorption on the most of Lecturer is 9.5.1988. 13. Thus, there are two Commissions and one order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court against this appellant. Fact finding Commissions have already given their reports. We see no reason to alter the fact finding report already given by Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission which was accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission has become part and parcel of an order dated 12.10.2004. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer of this appellant in W.P. (S) No. 6195 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 25th January, 2017. 14. There is, therefore, no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only). The amount will be deposited by this appellant before the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development & Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand towards the Juvenile Justice Fund. This amount will be deposited in Bank Account No.3734498462-5. ten thousand only). The amount will be deposited by this appellant before the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development & Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand towards the Juvenile Justice Fund. This amount will be deposited in Bank Account No.3734498462-5. Jharkhand Juvenile Justice Fund State Bank of India, Project Bhawan, Hatia, Ranchi, either by cheque or bank draft, within a period of four weeks from today towards Juvenile Justice Fund, failing which, the University is hereby, directed to deduct the amount from the salary/pension of this appellant in ten Equal Monthly Installments and thereafter, the University shall deposit the amount in the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice Fund. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the welfare of the juveniles as per the duties assigned by the State under the Juvenile Justice Act. 15. A copy of this order will be sent to the : (a) Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development & Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand; (b) Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi. Appeal dismissed with cost.