Dr. Dhirendra Narh Ojha vs Ranchi University, Ranchi and Others

Prashant Kumar, J.—In this writ application, petitioner prayed for quashing of memo no. B/8039-58/96 dated 17.5.1996 ( Annexure-8), whereby respondent no. 5 has been promoted to the post of Reader in the Department of History w.e.f. 03.01.1987 under eight Years Merit -Promotion Statute.

it is stated that respondent no.5 was initially appointed on the post of temporary teacher for six months on 01.01.1979 vide Annexure-2. It is then stated that latter on Bihar Universities Act has been amended and as per amended provision syndicate can appoint a teacher on the recommendation of University Selection Committee. It is stated that on 30.8.1981, the University Selection Committee recommended the names of petitioner and respondent no.5 and others vide Annexure-5 for appointment on the post of lecturer. In the said panel name of petitioner found place at serial no.1, whereas name of respondent no.5 is at serial no. 6. It is stated that as per recommendation of Selection Committee, the University issued notification appointing petitioner and respondent no.5 on 04.12.1981. In the said notification ( Annexure-6) name of petitioner found place at serial no. 1, whereas name of respondent no.5 is at serial no.6. Thus, it is clear that petitioner is senior to respondent no.5, which also notified by Registrar of the Ranchi University by issuance of Annexure-9. It is further stated that inspite of aforesaid factual position respondent-University promoted respondent no.5 with effect from 03.1.1987 under 8 Years Merit Promotion Statute. It is stated that initial appointment of respondent no.5 was only for six months. Thus, his service stood terminated on completion of six months. Accordingly, it is submitted that Respondent no.5 is not in continuous service from 1979. It is stated that from the date of regular appointment i.e. 04.12.1981 respondent no.5 had not completed 8 years of service, thus, he can not be promoted under eight years Merit Promotion Statute. Accordingly, it is stated that order of promotion of petitioner with effect from 03.1.1987 cannot be sustained.

A counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 wherein he stated that he has been appointed by University on temporary basis and his appointment continued uninterrupted under the order of University till he was permanently absorbed by Annexure-6 on the recommendation of University Selection Committee. It is further stated that respondent no.5 is in continuous service of University from 03.01.1979. It is stated that his service remain temporary from 3rd January, 1979 to 3rd December, 1981 and, thereafter, he became permanent from 04.12.1981. It is stated that thus respondent no.5 had completed more than 8 years of service in the University on 03.1.1987 thus, he has been rightly promoted under the provision of eight years Merit Promotion Statute. It is further stated that as per aforesaid Statute a lecturer is entitled for consideration for promotion on the post of Reader if he completed 8 years of continuous service as lecturer and have outstanding work in the field of teaching and research. It is stated that respondent no.5 besides having 8 years continuous service as lecturer had obtained Ph.D. degree in 1985. It is further stated that he wrote one book and his three research papers published in different journals. It is stated that considering the aforesaid merit of respondent no.5 College Service Commission has given concurrence to promote respondent no.5 with effect from 03.01.1987. Thus, promotion of respondent no.5 is in accordance with law. It is stated that since petitioner obtained Ph.D. degree on 01.12.1989, therefore, he has been promoted with effect from 01.12.1989.

College Service Commission has also filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that University while recommending the case of respondent no.5 had stated that respondent no.5 is in continuous service from 03.1.1979 and accordingly he has been promoted from 03.01.1987. It is stated that Commission after considering the document gave its concurrence on the promotion of respondent no.5 under 8 years Merit Promotion Statutes. It is further stated that since petitioner did not produce evidence of outstanding work prior to 01.12.1989, therefore. Commission accepted recommendation of Ranchi University and granted concurrence on the promotion of petitioner with effect from 01.12.1989.

It is submitted by petitioner that initial appointment of petitioner was only for six months, therefore, after completion of six months his service terminated by efflux of time. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is wrong to say that respondent no.5 has completed 8 years continuous service as lecturer.

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that respondent no.5 has continuously worked in the University from 03.1.1979 to 03.12.1981 as temporary lecturer and, thereafter, he has been permanently absorbed on the recommendation of University Selection Committee. It is submitted that it is well settled that while granting promotion, period spent by the appointee during temporary or officiating service will be counted. Accordingly, it is submitted that respondent no.5 fulfill all conditions enumerated in eight years Merit Promotion Statute. Thus, he has been rightly promoted with effect from 03.01.1987.

Having heard submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. Admittedly, respondent no.5 was working as temporary lecturer in Ranchi University from 03.01.1979. It is specifically stated by respondent no.5 that he worked continuously as temporary lecturer till the date of confirmation i.e. 04.12.1981. University as well as the University Service Commission have admitted aforesaid fact. Petitioner has not brought on record any order to show that at any point of time, service of respondent no.5 has been terminated by the University. Under the said circumstance, I find that on 03.01.1987 respondent no.5 continuously worked for more than eight years on the post of lecturer.

As per Statute regarding Merit Promotion of lecturer, it is necessary that lecturer must complete eight years of continuous service. Object for such promotion is to recognize outstanding work of University teachers in the area of teaching and research. It is further stated that such promotion shall be deemed to be personal promotion and main criteria of such promotion would be the merit of work and not seniority of teachers. It is further provided that promotion will depend on consideration and assessment of work done by teachers such as research, publication, book''s review, curriculum development, teaching aids, innovation in teaching methods, equipment developed etc. In counter affidavit respondent no.5 had specifically stated that he wrote one book and his three papers published. He obtained Ph. D degree in 1995. In the counter affidavit respondent no.5 has further stated that petitioner obtained Ph.D. degree on 01.12.1989. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder. The Commission in its counter affidavit had specifically stated that petitioner did not produce any evidence of outstanding work prior to 01.12.1989. Under the said circumstance, it is clear that as per 8 years Merit Promotion Statute petitioner was not entitled for promotion prior to 01.12.1989.

It has been held by a Constitution Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'' The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers'' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, that once an incumbent is appointed temporarily to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. In that view of the matter, respondent-University and Commission had rightly taken into account the period during which respondent no.5 worked as lecturer on temporary basis, because respondent no.5 was appointed on temporary basis after following all procedure of regular appointment.

In view of discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application, accordingly, same is dismissed.