Parshuram Pathak ……… v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher Education Department of Human Resources
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 5454 of 2017 In L.P.A No. 231 of 2017 Parshuram Pathak ………. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher Education Department of Human Resources at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave, University Hazaribagh, at Hazaribag 3. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O.+P.S. Hazaribag, at Hazaribag 4. The Principal, Sanskrit Upshastri College, at P.O. and P.S. Medninagar, Palamau, District-Palamau. ………. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondents : None …… : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Adv. 05/06.02.2024 Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and none appears on behalf of the State. 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4.
Decision
I.A. No.5454 of 2017 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 231 of 2017 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 399 of 2015 by which the prayer of the writ petitioner (appellant herein) for 2 quashing of letter no. 144/2015 dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Principal Sanskrit Upshastri Mahavidyalaya, Medninagar, Palamau has been dismissed. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned single judge failed to take into consideration that the petitioner had obtained enhanced qualification of Master of Arts in the 1999 which was the basic qualification required for being promoted to the post of lecturer. It has further been submitted that Sanskrit Upshastri Mahavidyalaya, Medninagar, Palamau was upgraded to a Bachelor Degree Level College and the charts annexed to the writ application issued by the Vinoba Bhave University clearly indicates the designation of the writ petitioner as a lecturer and since the circumstances necessary to conclude that the writ petitioner was a lecturer and fulfilling all the required criteria was present in the notice informing the petitioner of his impending superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years was apparently bad in law which fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge. 7. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the Upshastri Level Sanskrit Colleges were established prior to the year 1978 and they were recognized as a Sanskrti Colleges by the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Medninagar, Daltonganj at Palamau on 09.03.1981 and his qualification was that of a graduate. The appointment of the writ petitioner was approved by Kamehswar Singh Darbhanaga Sanskrit University vide letter dated 20.04.1982. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the said institution was taken over by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag vide Memo 3 No. 1716 dated 15.12.2003. The petitioner while working in the said institution was issued a letter bearing letter No. 144/2015 dated 21.01.2015 informing the petitioner that he shall superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. The said letter no. 144/2015 dated 21.01.2015 was under challenge in W.P(S) No. 399 of 2015 which however, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.08.2016. 8. The grievance of the petitioner as could be deciphered from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the factual aspects of the case is that the writ petitioner claims that since he is a lecturer and fulfills all the requisite criteria and the institution has also been upgraded to a B.A. degree level college the age of superannuation would be 62 years which was subsequently enhanced to 65 years but the writ petitioner has been issued a letter by which he was sought to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. 9. The learned Single Judge after considering all aspects of the matter has come to a conclusion which reads as under:- “11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the petitioner is only having the qualification of a B.A. and he was appointed only as an Assistant Teacher in the school, and his appointment as such was approved even by the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University by letter contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner has not brought any document on record to show that this institution was ever upgraded to Bachelor degree level and it was imparting any education up to that level. Similarly, the petitioner has not brought on record any document to show that the petitioner ever enhanced his educational qualification to the minimum qualification 4 required for appointment of a Lecturer under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, or that the petitioner was ever appointed as a Lecturer of a college by any competent authority.” Admittedly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the writ petitioner was ever appointed/promoted as a lecturer though certain charts have been brought on record in support of the same; one which has been issued by the institution concerned and the other by the Vinoba Bhave University. Merely on account of the post by the writ petitioner being shown as a lecturer in the said document would not suffice in absence of their being any office order to the effect that the writ petitioner was appointed as a lecturer. In fact, the writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and at the time of his appointment he only had qualification of Bachelor of Arts. Nothing also seems to have surfaced which would indicate that the institution in question was upgraded to a degree college and in fact it has been categorically mentioned by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner has failed to bring anything on record to indicate that the petitioner had ever enhanced his educational qualification though Mr. Ojha learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the writ petitioner had attained the qualification of Master of Arts in the year 1999. In absence of their being anything on record to suggest that the writ petitioner fulfilled all requisite criteria which would culminate in a finding that he was indeed a lecturer and therefore his age of superannuation would be 62 years the learned Single Judge had rightly considered the entire aspects of the case and dismissed the writ application vide order dated 30.08.2016. 5 10. We on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.399 of 2015 and consequent thereto this appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/Amardeep/