Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 515 (JHR)

Santosh Kumar Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-21

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the part of the order dated 24.6.2018 by which, the court of learned Chancellor of the Universities of the State of Jharkhand has not given any finding in respect of the prayer of regularizing the service of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed to teach the students of Commerce of Shree Shree Lakshmi Narain Trust Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Dhanbad, which was a constituent college under the Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner has worked till September 2003 but neither his remuneration was made nor his services were regularized. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(S) No. 2967 of 2003 praying for regularization of his services. On earlier occasion also, the petitioner had approached this Court in CWJC No. 2980 of 1998 (R). Considering the case of this petitioner, this Court vide order dated 24.6.2003 directed the College to fill up the post after advertising the same. Liberty was given to the petitioner to apply along with others for the said post. Further it was ordered that while filling up the post, the past experience of the petitioner of serving the college for more than a decade shall also be considered. The petitioner did not qualify. 3. The petitioner approached the Court of the learned Chancellor of the Universities of the State praying therein for absorption and remuneration. The service appeal being Service Appeal No. 05/2016 of the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Chancellor vide order dated 27.6.2018, part of the said order is impugned in this writ petition, by which no order on absorption was passed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Service Appeal No. 05/2016, two-folds prayer were made; (i) to absorb the services of the petitioner, and (ii) to pay the salary/remuneration for which, he has already worked. Counsel for the petitioner submit that though the second prayer was allowed in favour of the petitioner but no finding at all has been given nor adjudication is there in respect of first prayer of the petitioner i.e. absorption. He further submits that the Court of Chancellor should have considered the case of the petitioner for absorption and decided the issue. 5. Mr. He further submits that the Court of Chancellor should have considered the case of the petitioner for absorption and decided the issue. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Chancellor submits that no occasion have arisen before the Chancellor to deal with the first prayer with respect to absorption, as the petitioner himself has relinquished the said prayer, which would be evident from the order impugned. He further submits that vide order dated 30.5.2017 on submission of the counsel of the petitioner it was held that the petitioner is relinquishing and is not pressing the claim of his absorption. He also submits that the said submission made before the Chancellor is also quoted in the order-sheet dated 24.6.2018 (impugned order), has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time though, the same was passed a year before the order impugned. He further submits that when the petitioner himself has withdrawn his claim for regularization, the Chancellor is not duty bound to pass an order on the claim which stands withdrawn at the behest of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner had approached the Chancellor in Service Appeal No. 05/2016. Admittedly, his prayer was two-folds i.e. (i) Prayer for absorption, and (ii) payment of his remuneration. The order dated 30.5.2017 clearly suggests that the prayer for absorption was given up and the arguments were made only in respect of payment of dues. This order dated 30.5.2017 has been incorporated in the order impugned. Admittedly, the order dated 30.5.2017 has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time though the petitioner was well aware of the said order. Thus, the only prayer of the petitioner, which remains to be adjudicated by the learned Chancellor was in relation to payment of his remuneration. 7. Order XXIII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a claimant at any time after the institution of a suit can withdraw or abandon his suit or a part of the claim. This principle of CPC can be applied in the proceeding which was pending before the Chancellor. In this case, the petitioner himself has withdrawn or abandoned his claim for regularization before the Chancellor. This principle of CPC can be applied in the proceeding which was pending before the Chancellor. In this case, the petitioner himself has withdrawn or abandoned his claim for regularization before the Chancellor. Once a claim which stands abandoned or withdrawn in a proceeding, the same need not be discussed or adjudicated by the authorities before whom the proceeding is pending. The Court of learned Chancellor was not duty bound to decide the claim of the petitioner in relation to absorption which the petitioner himself has abandoned. Thus I find no illegality in the order impugned by which, the claim in respect of absorption was not adjudicated by the learned Chancellor, because the same was withdrawn at the behest of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner by way of filing this writ petition cannot say that the authority is wrong in not considering the case of the petitioner. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.