Krishna Kant Tiwary vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

P.P. Bhatt

In pursuance to the order dated 01st February, 2012, today, the Registrar of Vinoba Bhawe University is present before this Court and has assured that in future, he will take due care in matters pending before the High Court for the purpose of filing reply in time and giving instructions to the learned counsel appearing in the matter.

In view of the above assurance, personal appearance of the Registrar, Vinoba Bhawe University, is hereby dispensed with.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-University.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that the Respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in term of reference of Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission Report. It is further prayed that appropriate direction be issued commanding upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption to the post of Laboratory In-charge, Geography in Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh as they have done to the similarly situated like the petitioner in pursuance of the decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 18th December, 2005 by which the Syndicate reinstated the services of five persons of Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh w.e.f. 18th December, 2005. It is further prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the Respondents to abide by the decision taken by the Syndicate on 01.02.2006 to reinstate all its employees who have been terminated by then Ranchi University.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Governing Body of Markhan College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, who approved the appointment of the petitioner vide its decision dated 05.10.1985, which was circulated vide letter dated 07.10.1985. The said college had been taken over as a constituent college of Ranchi University, now Vinoba Bhawe University with effect from 31.10.1986 and thereafter all the teaching and non-teaching staffs including the petitioner are being paid their salaries regularly, whose services were approved by the then Governing Body of the College.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the order passed by the Hon''ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and more particularly on the observations made on page 141 of Annexure-11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards page 50 of the writ petition to show that his name was also included in the list which was sent for consideration to the Vice-chancellor, where his name is indicated against the subject ''Geography'' against the total sanctioned vacant post. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that cases of other similarly situated employees have been considered and they have been absorbed.

As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-University submitted that the case of the petitioner is different from those cases which have been considered by the Respondent-University. It is further submitted that petitioner was not appointed against clear and sanctioned post and therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the Respondent-authorities. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the Respondent-University has drawn attention to Annexure-7, page 59. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has drawn attention to Para 11 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the name of the petitioner was not figured in the affidavit filed by the Respondent-University before the S.C. Agarwal Committee. The learned counsel for the Respondent-University invited attention to Para 9 of the judgment, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3057 of 1992 (R), which reads as under : -

The petitioner was not appointed on regular basis. He never received payment either from the college or from the University. He is not being paid as he is not in the approved list. The so-called appointment of the petitioner was itself against the statutory provisions of law and so, it was illegal. The University issued a letter dated-23.7.1992, directing all the members of the newly converted constituent colleges to terminate the services of all the teaching and non-teaching staff, whose names do not appear in the approved list of the State Government. Accordingly, the petitioner''s service were rightly terminated by the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of the aforesaid direction. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner himself has taken a contradictory stand in paragraph 7 of the writ application that he was working against sanctioned post whereas in paragraph 25 of the writ application, he has stated that he was working against the recommended post.

In the light of the aforesaid observations, the learned counsel for the Respondent-University submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing than the cases, considered by the Respondent-University.

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers, it appears that the petitioner put forward his claim on the basis of the observations made by the apex Court in the light of the judgment, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 and the report of the Justice S.C. Agarwal''s Committee and that petitioner made representations before the Respondent-University, justifying his claim for consideration but the Respondent-University has not taken any decision, so far on the representations made by the petitioner and therefore, it is desirable that the Respondent-University take final decision on the representations made by the petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid position, the petitioner shall make a fresh and detailed representation before the Registrar of the Vinoba Bhawe University within three weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of such representation, the Respondent-University shall decide the same within three months and communicate the final outcome of the said representation to the petitioner. It is further clarified that the petitioner can take all the contentions, which has been taken in the present petition to justify his claim and it is expected that the Respondent-University will arrive at a decision after careful consideration of the observations made by the Hon''ble apex Court as well as Justice S.C. Agarwal Committee''s report. It is further clarified that the petitioner''s case may be considered in the light of Annexure-12 and 15, annexed to the writ petition.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.