The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 ---- 1.Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag through its Registrar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar District Hazaribag. 2.The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag through its Registrar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar District Hazaribag. 3.The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag through its Registrar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar District Hazaribag. … … Appellants Versus 1.The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. ...Respondent No. 4 in writ petition 2.Akhauri Gopalji Sahay Son of Late Akhauri Dhanada Sahay resident of Mathari Bhawan, P.O. Korra, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag. ...Petitioner/Respondent. ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellants For the JSSC For the Res No. 2 : Mr. Indranani Sen Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate -------- CAV on 01/07/2024 Pronounced on 23/07/2024 I.A. No. 5563 of 2023 1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. 4. There is no rebuttal affidavit on behalf of respondents. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5563 of 2023 stands disposed of. Prayer in L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 - 1 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 6. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order/judgment dated 06.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4076 of 2013 whereby and whereunder while allowing the writ petition the decision as contained in letter dated 07.06.2013 by which the claim of the petitioner for shifting the initial date of appointment from 01.05.1986 to 04.10.1983 was rejected, has been quashed and set aside. Facts of the case: 7. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, reads as under: 8. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.10.1983 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of History in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh as per the resolution of the ad-hoc committee in its meeting held on 23.09.1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining on 04.10.1983. It is further case of the petitioner that he passed the doctorate of Philosophy examination in the faculty of Arts (History) held in the month of June, 1986 and accordingly, he was awarded with the degree of Ph.D. 9. The Registrar of Ranchi University issued notification dated 13.11.1986 notifying the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh as a constituent Unit of Ranchi - 2 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 University w.e.f. 31.10.1986 in pursuance to Education Department’s letter dated 19.08.1986. 10. Since certain disputes arose regarding date of absorption/regularization of 4000 teaching and non-teaching staffs of the University in 40 colleges affiliated to different Universities, which were taken over as Constituent College in accordance with the provisions of Bihar University Act, 1976, the matter went up-to the Hon’ble Apex Court who constituted a one man committee known as S.C. Agrawal Commission. The said Commission submitted its report which was accepted and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.10.2004 and the authorities concerned have given date of joining of petitioner and others to the respective post for absorption/ regularization as 04.10.1983 and Hon’ble S.C. Agrawal Commission has accepted the same. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities concerned all of a sudden without any notice or reason, arbitrarily and illegally changed the date of absorption of the petitioner as 01.05.1986 instead of 04.10.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations for correction of his date of absorption/regularization in terms of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, report of S.C. - 3 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 Agrawal Commission and also in view of notification dated 04.08.1998 but all went in vain. 12. Subsequently, the authorities came out with a notification dated 12.07.2007 and in para-2 of the said notification, it was categorically stated that if there is dispute in respect of the date of absorption/regularization, then the teacher whose date of absorption is not correct should make representation along with the supporting documents through proper channel within a period of 15 days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made representation on 17.07.2007 stating therein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the date of absorption of petitioner as 04.10.1983 but the same has been changed to 01.05.1986 that too without any valid reason and requested the authorities concerned to correct the same but when nothing was done, the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P. (S). No. 3894 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner and to take appropriate decision on his representation dated 17.07.2007 within 60 days. 13. However, in spite of the orders passed by this Court and
Legal Reasoning
affirmed up-to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the authorities did not consider the prayer made by the petitioner for shifting the - 4 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 date of absorption of the petitioner from 01.05.1986 to 04.10.1983. 14. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the writ Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4076 of 2013, which was allowed by quashing the order as contained in letter dated 07.06.2013 and the respondents-authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment i.e., 04.10.1983, which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 15. Thus, it is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1983 as Lecturer in the Department of History in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, on the basis of the resolution of the meeting of the ad-hoc committee held on 23.09.1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining on 04.10.1983. 16. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities concerned without any notice or reason, changed the date of absorption of the petitioner as 01.05.1986, based upon the decision of the University after creation of the post. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted several representations but no action was taken. 17. Subsequently, the authorities came out with a notification dated 12.07.2007 wherein it was stated that if there is dispute in respect to the date of absorption/ - 5 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 regularization, then the teacher whose date of absorption is not correct should make representation along with the supporting documents, pursuant thereto, the petitioner made representation on 17.07.2007 but nothing was done, as such the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P. (S). No. 3894 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.12.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of identical issue decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. In terms of the order passed by the writ Court in WP(S) No. 3894 of 2009, the authorities considered the grievance of the petitioner and rejected the prayer for the petitioner for shifting the date of absorption of the petitioner from 01.05.1986 to 04.10.1983 vide order dated 07.06.2013. Being aggrieved with order dated 07.06.2013, the petitioner approached the writ Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4076 of 2013. 19. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that as petitioner’s name figured in the 2nd category i.e. Teachers appointed against the post for which recommendations were sent by the University to the State Government up-to cut-off date and hence, he is entitled for revised pay-scale and regularization/absorption w.e.f. 04.10.1983. Accordingly, held the petitioner entitled for relief - 6 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 as prayed for in view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. [(2005) 9 SCC 129] and in case of Mahatma Gandhi University Vs. Rincymol Mathew [AIR 2022 SC 563] and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment i.e., 04.10.1983 and grant all consequential benefits. 20. The order passed by learned Single Judge is the subject matter of instant appeal. Arguments on behalf of the appellant:
Legal Reasoning
21. Mrs. Indranani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-University has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge: I. The finding has been arrived by the learned Single Judge as has been recorded at paragraph 10 of the order impugned wherein the petitioner has been held entitled for absorption even though taking note of the admitted fact that the name of the petitioner figured in the 2nd category i.e. teachers appointed against the post for which the recommendations were sent by the University to the State Government up-to cut-off date. But it is admitted fact the writ petitioner has never been absorbed w.e.f. 04.10.1983 and he could not - 7 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 have been regularized because his name was under the list of recommended candidate and considering his eligibility of the recommended candidate the requisition to the State Government for creation of post was sent. The post has been created by the State Government w.e.f. 30.04.1986 and on the following day, he has been absorbed i.e., on 01.05.1986. II. The finding given by the learned Single Judge, which is based upon the notification issued by the University dated 04.08.1998 wherein it has been reflected that the date of regularization to be 04.10.1983 but the content of the said letter is that such regularization will be subject to creation of post by the State Government. The post has been created w.e.f. 30.04.1986 and hence the writ petitioner was regularized on the following day i.e., w.e.f. 01.05.1986. III. The notification dated 04.08.1998 has been taken into consideration but without taking consideration the subsequent decision taken on the said issue by issuance of notification dated 16.09.2005 with the specific stipulation made therein that the notification dated 16.09.2005 supersedes all previous notification - 8 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 issued by the University pertaining to the relaxation/absorption of the services of the teachers. IV. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner even though the same was available on record. Therefore, serious error has been committed by learned Single Judge in putting reliance upon letter dated 04.08.1998 giving no consideration to the subsequent notification dated 16.09.2005. V. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge has decided the issue on the pretext
Decision
that whatever has been pleaded by the writ petitioner has been accepted by the Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission but that is not the fact reason being that the in the Agarwal Commission report the writ petitioner is placed in the category of recommended eligible candidate in the subject history wherein all together 11 posts have been referred out of which two posts were sanctioned and 8 posts have been recommended for creation of post by the State Government. The name of the writ petitioner reflects in the list of the eligible candidate for the purpose of recommendation of creation of post and the day when the post was created i.e. on 30.04.1986 the very next day i.e, on 01.05.1986 the writ petitioner has been - 9 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 regularized hence it is not fit to contend that the petitioner to be absorbed w.e.f. 04.10.1983, the day when he joined the service. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. Submission of the Respondent 23. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has defended the order passed by learned Single Judge on the following grounds: I. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the notification issued by the university dated 04.08.1998 wherein specifically the date of absorption of the petitioner has been shown to be 04.10.1983. II. Learned Single Judge has also considered the fact that the post for which the recommendations were sent by University to the State Government in which the name of the petitioners find place and hence the petitioner was held to be entitled for absorption w.e.f. 04.10.1983. III. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Division Bench of this - 10 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 Court in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi & Ors [2012 2 JCR 153] as also the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apx Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. [supra]. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. Analysis 25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the fining recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the relevant extract of Agrawal Commission report and the documents/notifications appended with the paper book. 26. This Court on consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the finding so recorded in the impugned order is required to consider as to: I. Whether the writ petitioner-respondent will be entitled for absorption w.e.f. 04.10.1983 i.e., from the date of joining in the said affiliated college or - 11 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 w.e.f. 01.05.1986 when the posts were sanctioned w.e.f. 30.04.1986 by the State Government? II. Whether the claim of the writ petitioner for absorption w.e.f. 04.10.1983 in absence of any post having been created by the State Government can be said to be just and proper? III. Whether the reliance put by learned Single Judge in the notification dated 04.08.1998 can be said to be proper consideration by giving go by to the subsequent notification i.e., notification dated 16.09.2005 by which the earlier notification on the issue has been superseded which also has not been challenged by the writ petitioner even though the same was the part of the writ petition? 27. All the issues since are inter-linked, therefore, they are taken up together. 28. This Court before answering the aforesaid issue deems it fit and proper to refer certain factual aspect of the present case. 29. The petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1983 as Lecturer in the Department of History in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, on the basis of the resolution of the meeting of the ad-hoc committee held on 23.09.1983. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining on 01.10.1983. - 12 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 The college was established in the year 1977 and was initially affiliated with the Ranchi University. The affiliation was for B.A. B.Sc. and B. Com Courses. Now the said college is under the control of Vinoba Bhave University w.e.f. 17.09.1992. The Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh became a constituent college as per notification dated 13.11.1986 w.e.f. 31.10.1986, as per decision taken by the State Government vide letter dated 19.08.1986. 30. The issue of regularization/absorption has been agitated by number of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the University and matter ultimately travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. (supra). The issue has been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court regarding claim of teaching and non-teaching staffs who have been appointed in the affiliated college before making the college constituent. The Hon’ble Apex Court has constituted a commission for the aforesaid purpose to look into the grievance of one or the other teaching and non-teaching staffs under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal. The Hon’ble Agrawal Commission has also considered the issue of Teachers’ Association of Markham College, Hazaribagh who was added as respondent no. 67. The four - 13 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 terms of reference has been formulated so far college in question is concerened. 31. The terms of Reference No. I pertains to sanctioned posts of teaching staffs and second terms of Reference is the recommended posts of teaching staffs; the third terms of reference was the issue of permanent absorption if absorbed under the statute provided for regularization of temporary lecturers and the fourth term of reference was with respect to the issue to consider the cases of teaching and non-teaching staffs who are eligible for consideration of absorption in the order of the date of which they became eligible as per Annexure IV-A. 32. The Annexure I-A appended with the Agrawal Commission Report refers with respect to the issue of sanctioned posts of teachers. Herein, the subject matter of concern is the subject History. The History referred at serial no. 6 and altogether two (02) posts have been shown to be sanctioned for the subject history. For ready reference the Sanctioned Posts of Teachers, as mentioned at Annexure –IA is quoted as under: SANTIONED POSTS OF TEACHERS Nature of Pots Subject-wise Order subject wise sanctioning the post Total of Number posts subject wise Annexure-IA Dec. 21 Feb. I, Feb. Dec. - 14 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 1. Principal Lecturers 1. English 2. Hindi 3. 4. Sanskrit Political Science Philosophy (Logic) 5. 6. History 7. Commerce 8. Economics 9. Urdu 10 Physics 11. Chemistry 12. Mathematics Total 1976 1979 28, 1982 21, 1984 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 - - - - - 9 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 22 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 1 - - - - 9 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 33. Annexure II-A contains the ‘Recommended posts of teaching staffs’ under two headings (a).Recommendations made by the University up to the cut off date pending consideration before the State Government and (b).Proposal submitted by the college administration pending consideration before the university. Herein we are concerned with the issue as under ‘A’ in the subject history, in which altogether 8 posts have been recommended, which is pending consideration before the State Government. 34. For ready reference, the tabular chart as at Annexure – IIA is quoted as under: (a).RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE UNIVERSITY UPTO THE CUT OFF DATE PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE STATE GOVERNMENT Annexure-IIA Nature of Post Date of Letter Total Number of reccome nded posts - 15 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 Dec.14/15, 1983 March 17, 1985 May 22, 1985 Nov. 11, 1985 subject wise 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Lecturers 2 Commerce 1(2-1) Chemistry 1(2-1) Physics 2 Botany 2 Zoology 2 Geography 2 Psychology 1(2-1) Urdu 2 Hindi History 4 Political Science 5 1 Philosophy 2 Economics 2 English 1(2-1) Mathematics 1 Sanskrit - Sociology 29 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 3 - 2 1 2 1 - - 4 4 5 1 4 - 2 - - 29 5 1 3 3 4 3 2 1 6 8 8 2 6 2 4 1 1 60 35. At Annexure IIIA to the Agrawal Commission, the description of ‘Teachers who were working on the date of conversion arranged subject-wise’ has been given. The name of the teachers who were teaching the subject history has been mentioned from serial no. 28 to 38. Since two posts were sanctioned hence 09 teachers have been found to be working, the day when the list as under Annexure-IIIA was prepared. For ready reference, the relevant portion of list under Annexure III-A is quoted as under: Annexure IIIA TEACHERS WHO WERE WORKING ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION ARRANGED SUBJECT-WISE: Name of the Teacher Subject Date of appointment 1.Shri Shiv Dayal Singh Principal 16.09.1977 „S‟ 2...xxx ... ... xxx xxx - 16 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 ... 28.Sri Hayat Ahmad History 23.03.1974 29.Sri Prafulla Chandra Roy History 30.Sri Shiveshwar Prasad History 31.Sri A.G. Sahay History 32.Sri Deepak Kumar Choubey History 33.Sri Shyam Kishore Singh History 34.Sri Jai Gobind Prasad History 35.Sri Chandra Shekhar Sahay History 36.Sri Chandan Kumar History 37.Sri Ashok Kumar Keshri History 38.Sri Uday Kumar Singh History 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 7.12.1983 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 „S‟ „S‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ „R-1‟ 36. The Annexure IV A to the Agrawal Commission contains the list of teaching staffs who were eligible to be considered for absorption under which at serial no. 8, the subject history has been referred showing the name of 11 teachers in the history subject in which Sri Hayat Ahmad at serial no. 1 has been shown to be permanently absorbed and the name of the writ petitioner figures at serial no. 4, who was shown to be eligible on 01.10.1983 but appointed under the affiliated college on 01.10.1983. For ready reference, the relevant portion of annexure IV A I quoted as under: Annexure IV-A TEACHING STAFF WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ABSORPTION Number of Name of the Date of Date of Nature of post teacher eligibility appointment appointment sanctioned subject-wise History 8 1.Sri Hayat Ahmad 23.03.1974 23.03.1974 Permanently 2.Sri Prafulla 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 Chandra Roy absorbed - 17 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 3.Sri Shiveshwar 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 Prasad 4.Sri A.G. Sahay 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 1.10.1983 Deepak 5.Sri Kumar Choubey 6.Sri Chandra 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 Shekhar Singh 7.Sri Chandan 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 Kumar 8.Sri Ashok Kumar 5.10.1985 5.10.1985 Keshri 9. Sri Shyam 9.5.1988 1.10.1983 Kishore Singh 10.Sri Jai Gobind 9.5.1988 7.12.1983 Prasad 11.Sri Uday Kumar 5.10.1985 Singh 15.01.2001 37. Thus, it is evident that for the teaching staffs two categories have been carved out. 38. First category is of the sanctioned post. 39. The second category of post which is to be recommended for the purpose of absorption of the lecturers in history subject by making recommendation for creation of post to the State Government showing the eligibility of the teachers, which includes the name of the writ petitioner. 40. These documents thus admittedly reflects that the joining of the writ petitioner was not against sanctioned post rather it was in the list of the recommended candidate shown to be eligible for absorption subject to creation of post by the State Government. - 18 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 41. At this juncture the notification dated 04.08.1998 is to be taken note of herein, which has also been referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The same has been appended as Annexure 3. The said notification has been issued by the order of Vice Chancellor. 42. The content of the said letter is that the said notification has been issued in compliance with the order of the High Court in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995 passed on 31.01.1997 and in pursuance of Section 4 sub-section 14 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended up-to date, the Vice- Chancellor on consideration of the relevant documents has ascertained the teacher concerned after finding them eligible as also appointed and working prior to 30th April, 1986 against recommended post as regularized service of the Teachers of the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh with effect from the date mentioned against each subject to the sanctioned of post by the State Government and the concurrence of the Bihar State University constituent College Service Commission, Patna under Section 57(C) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. For ready reference, the content of the said notification is quoted as under: “In compliance of the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995 passed on 31.01.1997 and in pursuance of Section 4 Sub-Section 14 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended up to date, the Vice- Chancellor, after getting the relevant papers, materials and - 19 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 other information scrutinized by committee constituted by the university which ascertained that the teacher concerned was found appointed and working before 10.04.1986 against recommended post and was being paid his/her through bank therefore, has been pleased to regularize the services of the following lecturers, in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribag, an affiliated college which was converted into a constituent college of the erstwhile Ranchi University (now under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag) during the fourth phase of conversion, with effect from the date mentioned against each, subject to the sanction of posts by the State Government and the concurrence of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Services Commission, Patna under Section 57 (C) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended upto date. These lecturers shall be placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 on the date of taking over the college by the erstwhile Ranchi University, Ranchi. The arrears and other statutory benefits to these teachers shall be paid only after their salary is fixed by the Government of Bihar and the sanctioned amount is released to the University. Vinoba Bhave University shall be responsible for such arrear payment with effect from the establishment of the University i.e, 17.09.1992 .. shall request the Ranchi University to release the arrears from 30.04.1986 to 16.09.1992. ... 43. The said notification contains a tabular chart containing the list of teachers of different subjects and the name of the writ petitioner figures at serial no. 15 wherein the subject has been shown to be history and date of regularization has been shown to be 04.10.1983. 44. Another notification was issued on 16.09.2005 which has been appended as Annexure 4 which is in supersession - 20 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 of all the previous notifications, which has been passed in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 passed on 12.10.2004 and in superstation/partial modification of earlier notification dated 19.03.2005 and 29.04.2004. The said notification was issued by the Vice- chancellor in exercise of powers vested in him under the provisions laid down under Section 4(1)(14) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 stating that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as above, in supersession of all previous notification, pass orders to absorb the services of the teachers, including the petitioner, of colleges converted into constituent units in 4th phase against posts recommended w.e.f. to the cut-off date i.e., 30.04.1986 and identified under Annexure of the report of the colleges by Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission. The relevant content of the notification dated 16.09.2005 is quoted as under: In compliance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6098 and in superstation/partial modification of earlier notification under memo no. VHU/Esstt/R.U. 12.2005 dated 19.3.2005 and VBU/Est. 596/2005 dated 29.04.2005 the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers vested in him under the provisions laid down under Section 4(4) (14) of Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 as amended up- to date has been pleased ot pass orders to absorb the services of the following teachers of Colleges converted into constituent units - 21 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 in 4th phase against posts Recommended up to cut-off date i.e., 30.4.86 and identified under Annexure -11-A of the report of the colleges by Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission. Sl. Name & Department Date of Date of No. Designation initial joining absorption 22. Sri A.G. History 04.10.1983 01.05.1986 Sahay 45. In the backdrop of these facts, the question of entitlement as has been reached by the learned Single Judge regarding the claim of the writ petitioner of the date of absorption w.e.f. 04.10.1983 is the core issue herein. 46. This Court has reached to the conclusion that the writ petitioner joined the services on 04.10.1983 in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh which was affiliated during the relevant time. 47. The admitted position herein is that the day when the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh was converted into a constituent college only two sanctioned post of history was there. 48. In the list as contained in Agrawal Commission Report, the name of the writ petitioner does not figure in the list of teachers appointed against the sanctioned post, as would be evident from the Annexure annexed therewith rather the name of the writ petitioner appears in the list holding him eligible making recommendation for absorption as per Annexure IVA. - 22 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 49. Another list has also been prepared as under Annexure IIA sending it before the State Government for creation of posts so that the eligible teachers under history subject whose names have been recommended may be absorbed. 50. The notification dated 04.08.1998 also reflects that although the vice chancellor has taken decision of regularization showing the date of regularization to be 04.10.1983 but such regularization has been made subject to the sanction of posts by the State Government. 51. The post admittedly has been sanctioned w.e.f. 04.0.1983, the date of creation of post is not in dispute even the learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing the same. 52. The question of absorption comes only once the name of one or the other appears in the list of the recommended candidate and being eligible for absorption will only depend upon the creation of post by the State Government. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed against the sanctioned post since only two sanctioned posts were there in the subject history and if the petitioner would have been appointed against the sanctioned post then his name would have been in the list of appointees under the caption post ‘appointed against sanctioned post’ but the petitioner was appointed against the post which was not sanctioned - 23 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 and his name figured in the list of recommended candidate holding him eligible for absorption. 53. It is in this pretext the writ petitioner has raised the grievance that his absorption is to be treated to be from 30.04.1983 and the basic argument agitated before the learned Single Judge is based upon notification dated 04.08.1998. The said notification dated 04.08.1998 and by considering the date of regularization to be 04.10.1983 the claim of the writ petitioner has been accepted and the decision taken by the authority rejecting such claim has been interfered with by quashing and setting it aside but the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition and while taking such decision it has not considered the very content of the notification wherein it has specifically been referred that such regularization will be subject to sanction of the post by the State Government. 54. The question arises that if the post has been sanctioned w.e.f. 30.04.1986 then how the petitioner claims for his absorption prior to the date of sanction of the post. 55. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact in right prospective and hold the petitioner entitle for regularization w.e.f. 04.10.1983. 56. The learned Single Judge has further held the writ petitioner entitled for revised pay-scale w.e.f. 04.10.1983, as - 24 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 per the finding so recorded at paragraph 10 but the same according to our considered view, based upon the aforesaid reasons hereinabove, cannot be said to be based upon the records particularly there is no reference to that effect in the Agrawal Commission Report the writ petitioner has been said to be appointed against the sanctioned post. 57. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi & Ors [(2013) 2 JCR 153] reliance upon which has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument but this Court has gone through the said judgment and found therefrom that the said judgment is based upon different facts and circumstances. 58. The law is well settled that the applicability of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of facts governing the case individually as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75. For ready reference the relevant of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions - 25 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” 59. This Court, based upon the factual aspect involved in this case, is of the view that when the parameters for absorption has already been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors. (supra) after acceptance of the Agrawal Commission Report in which the name of the petitioner has been found to be under the recommended candidate list for absorption and hence from the date of initial appointment the writ petitioner cannot be absorbed rather from the date of creation of the post he can be absorbed. 60. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect, as above and taking into consideration the reason assigned as above is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the factual aspect in right prospective by not taking into consideration the content of the notification dated 04.08.1998, wherein it has specifically been stated that the services of the teachers are being regularized subject to the sanction of posts by the State Government. 61. The learned Single Judge has also not taken into consideration the fact in right prospective that the absorption as per the Justice Agrawal Commission Report based upon - 26 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023 the list as under the Annexures as appended therewith has to be done if appointed against the sanctioned post but the petitioner has been appointed not against the sanctioned post and as such his name was in the list of recommended candidate holding him eligible to be absorbed. 62. Considering the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge needs interference. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. 63. The instant appeal stands allowed. In consequence thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed. 64. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands dispose of. I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ A.F.R (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) - 27 - L.P.A. No. 347 of 2023