The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2023 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay aged about 60 years son of Late Ramashish Upadhyay, permanent resident of Professor Colony, Karamtoli, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi at present residing at Ramgarh College Campus, Ramgarh, PO. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building HEC, PO Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Higher Technical Education and skilled Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Project Building Dhruwa, P.O. Dhruwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur District-Ranchi. 3. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, at Sindur, P.S. Muffasil, P.O. and District-Hazaribagh 4. Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, at Sindur, P.S. Muffasil, P.O. and District-Hazaribagh 5. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission Circular Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp.- VBU For the JPSC
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Rakesh Kumar (No.2), Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Namita Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate --- 07/19.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the JPSC during the Court proceedings, which is taken on record. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter vide memo No.4030 dated 22/11/2022 issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (Respondent no.5) by which he has declined to give concurrence and accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee of Vinoba Bhave University to grant promotion to the petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader w.e.f. 15/3/1995 and to the post Professor w.e.f. 15/3/2003 on the ground that on the date of appointment he did not possess required qualification. (II) Upon quashing of the above-mentioned impugned letter, the petitioner appropriate issuance writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader w.e.f. 15/3/1995 and to the post Professor w.e.f. 15/3/2003 with the corresponding monetary benefit and interest @ 18% per annum thereupon till date of realization.” prays for an of 2 4. The records of the case indicate that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 2503 of 2019 seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 15.03.1995 and to the post of Professor from 15.03.2003 with corresponding monetary benefits with interest. The said writ petition was disposed of referring the matter to the Committee constituted in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3375 of 2016 and other analogous cases. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the University has taken a decision on 16.06.2021 by holding that a teacher can be considered for promotion to the post of University Professor when he is a Reader/Associate Professor. The petitioner was working as Assistant Professor for which concurrence was still pending with JPSC. Hence the prayer of the petitioner for promotion on the post of University Professor under 8+8 years merit promotion scheme was not considered. 6. Thereafter, the matter was sent to JPSC and JPSC has passed the order as contained in Memo No. 4030 dated 22.11.2022 by holding that at the time of appointment on 07.10.1985 the petitioner was not having high second-class post-graduation degree and he obtained such degree subsequently on 15.03.1987 and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for concurrence to the appointment and consequently the JPSC declined the concurrence regarding appointment of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the recommendation of the one-man commission of Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.) [hereinafter referred to as the Commission] and has submitted that as per the Commission recommendation, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology by order dated 05.10.1985; On the date of appointment, he did not have high second-class post- graduation qualification having secured 52.19 marks; further, he improved his qualification and obtained M.Sc. degree with 63% marks on 15.03.1987 and became eligible for consideration on 15.03.1987. 8. the Commission submits counsel learned The that recommendation is in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order calls for interference. 3 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that JPSC is reconsidering the matter of the petitioner and for which appropriate letter dated 16.08.2023 has been issued to the University calling for information regarding the M.Sc. degree of the petitioner and such information has already been received by JPSC. He submits that the matter is under active consideration of JPSC and once an order is passed by the JPSC, then it will be referred to the University and the University will notify the concurrence and thereafter, the matter will again be referred to JPSC for the purposes of consideration of promotion of the petitioner. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the the parties and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that JPSC is revisiting/re-examining its earlier decision in furtherance of which appropriate communication has been made between JPSC and the University. The necessary information from the University has already been furnished to JPSC but no final decision has been taken. This court is of the view that the matter cannot remain pending for indefinite period at the end of the respondents. 11. In such circumstances, JPSC is directed to take a final call in connection with the claim of the petitioner regarding his approval of appointment within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The decision should be by a reasoned order and it should be communicated to the petitioner through speed- post. 12. If the decision is found to be in favour of the petitioner, then the University shall do the needful within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of communication from JPSC and refer the matter to JPSC for further decision with regard to the claim of promotion of the petitioner. Upon receipt of the communication from the University, the JPSC shall do the needful within four weeks from the
Decision
date of communication from the University. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)