The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 4466 of 2004 Shashi Sekhar Pathak @ Sekhar Pathak.........Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & others …….......Respondents. --- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the J.P.S.C. --- : M/s. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.. : Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary : Mr. S.Piprawal. 13/9.1.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. -- The petitioner has come before this Court for quashing of the order dated 26th June, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Governing Body, Bokaro Mahila College, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, by which his services were terminated w.e.f. 28th June, 2004. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential benefits on his reinstatement upon quashing of the impugned order. All the respondents were issued notices and service of notices upon respondent nos. 3 & 4 were treated to be validly served. However, no one entered appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 in spite of opportunity granted earlier. The University and J.P.S.C have already appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Bokaro Mahila College in the faculty of English on sanctioned post on 5th of May, 1988 on which he had submitted his joining and was working from 23rd November, 1987 itself for 17 long years before passing of the impugned order. The said appointment to the said post was advertised by the Bihar College Service Commission in the year 1994 and the petitioner duly applied for seeking the recommendation of the said Commission which issued interview letter dated 13th September, 2001. The advertisement and interview letter are contained at Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 14.9.2004. The interview letter was issued in the name of the petitioner on 13th September, 2001, but the interview could not be held due to the bifurcation of the State and in view of the letter issued by the Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 10th September, 2001, it was indicated that -2- the recommendation made by the commission after 15.11.2001 was not to be given effect to. It is the contention of the petitioner that in respect of other employees speaking order was passed by the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University on 13th December, 2003 and taking cue from the said order the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Bokaro Mahila College respondent no. 4 has issued the impugned order terminating his services along with 16 other Lecturers w.e.f. 28th June, 2004. However, vide another notification dated 29th June, 2004, this petitioner along with 13 others have been again reappointed on purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding six months. The petitioner's representation has remained unanswered and has been compelled to move this Court by way of present writ application. According to the petitioner, he has been continuously working right from the date of his joining in the said college in November, 1987 till he was illegally terminated by the impugned order w.e.f. 28th June, 2004 and again on his reinstatement w.e.f. 29th June, 2004 till date. From the aforesaid facts, it would appear that the action of the respondents are unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary and on the face of it perverse. The petitioner is not responsible, if the College Service Commission could not conclude the interview and make recommendation before the bifurcation of the State and even after bifurcation the State of Jharkhand issued communication to the Commission asking it not to make recommendation in respect of advertisements issued earlier for appointment of Lecturers within the Universities falling within the State of Jharkhand after 15.11.2000 i.e. bifurcation of the Parent State. In any case, for such lapses on the part of the authorities themselves the petitioner should not have been terminated by the impugned order. It is further submitted that they have themselves realized and again reinstated him from the next date itself. -3- The Respondent-University has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to the counsel for the Vinoba Bhawe University the college in question is an affiliated college and under Section 57A of the Jharkhand State Universities Act,2000, it is the governing body which is to take a decision in the matter of appointment, however, which was earlier subjected to concurrence from the Bihar College Service Commission and is now subject to recommendation from JPSC. The University, however, does not dispute that the petitioner had made an application under an advertisement issued by the College Service Commission in the year 1994, but the commission was not able to make a recommendation till the bifurcation of the State whereafter it was stopped from making so by a communication of the Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand itself. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University however also submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working since the year 1987 against the sanctioned post in English faculty of the said college till his termination. The Respondents-State has also filed their affidavit and these facts have not been disputed by the Respondents-State as well.
Legal Reasoning
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent- JPSC informs that no requisition has been sent to the JPSC by the Governing Body of the said college seeking recommendation in respect of the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the JPSC informs that the governing body of the said college has not asked for any concurrence from the commission and under the Universities Act it is the commission only which has been empowered to make recommendation for appointment of the Lecturers even of the affiliated college. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned vacant post in the English faculty in the Respondents-Bokaro Mahila College by the governing body in the year 1988 and has continued for 17 long years till his services has -4- terminated by the impugned order dated 26th June, 2004 w.e.f. 28thJune, 2004, purportedly on the ground that no concurrence or recommendation for his appointment was granted by the Bihar College Service Commission. However, it is also apparent that commission had issued an advertisement in the year 1994 itself against which the petitioner had applied and interview letter was issued to him in the year 2001 but on the instruction of the Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 10th September, 2001 the commission was precluded from concluding the said exercise and to make any recommendation in respect of the petitioner whose services were falling in college under University within the State of Jharkhand. As per the instruction of the Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand the commission had no jurisdiction to make any recommendation in respect of concurrence of appointment of Lecturers of colleges falling within the university under the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of Parent State of Jharkhand. Obviously the petitioner was not at fault for delay in conclusion of the exercise or the consequences arising out of bifurcation of the Parent State. Therefore the termination order passed on the aforesaid ground by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College in question cannot be sustained in law and on facts and it is accordingly set aside. The petitioner has again been reinstated from the next date itself i.e. 29th June, 2004 and has continued thereafter till date, as such upon quashing of the impugned order dated 26th June, 2004 passed by the Secretary, Governing Body, Bokaro Mahila College, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro the services of the petitioner would be treated to be continuous from the date on which he was originally appointed in college in question. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Decision
Consequently, the I.A. No. 2046 of 2004 also stands disposed of. jk (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)