The petitioners have prayed for quashing Clause 12(iii) as well as Clause 16 of the resolution, contained in Memo No.5/U1-06/20091188 dated 20th November, 2010 (Annexure10) issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand.

2. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel or the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not pressing for quashing of Clause 16 of the said resolution.

3. Clause 12(iii) of the said resolution imposes a condition for payment of annual increment to the teachers given promotion to the post of Reader under Time Bound Promotion Scheme on acquiring Ph.D. Degree and other eligibility prescribed by University Grant Commission (for short 'UGC').

4. The petitioners have assailed the said Clause 12(iii) on the ground that the same is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and is violative of Article 22 of the Statutes, framed under the provisions of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which has force of law. The said condition cannot be imposed on the petitioners, who were given promotion to the post of Reader under Time Bound Promotion Scheme approved by the UGC.

5. The petitioners are teachers of St. Xavier's College, Ranchi. They were initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in different departments. The petitioners, after getting suitable eligibility for promotion to the post of Readers, under Time Bound Promotion Scheme, were given promotion to the post of Reader. Their promotions were approved by the competent authority of the University. After promotion to the post of Reader, they were placed in the scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- in terms of 5th Pay Revision. Some of the petitioners are at the verge of retirement. The petitioners were getting annual increments, in accordance with the provision of 5th Pay Revision so far. By resolution dated 20th November, 2010 the State Government accepted and implemented the 6th Pay Revision package as recommended by the UGC to the Central Government. In the recommendation, there is no such condition for giving annual increment. But the State Government added Clause 12(iii), whereby imposing condition of acquisition of Ph.D. degree for giving annual increment to the teachers, given promotion to the post of Reader under the Time Bound promotion Scheme.

6. It has been submitted that the increment is payable under the provisions of Article 22 of the Statutes, framed under Bihar State universities Act, 1976, which has been approved by the Chancellor. The said provision of the Statutes does not prescribe any such condition for giving annual increment. Under the said provision, annual increment can be withheld only by way of punishment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the restriction imposed in Clause 12(iii) of the resolution is patently illegal and violative of the provisions of Article 22 of the Statutes as well as the same offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Some of the Readers who got promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis have been given increment, whereas the same is to be denied to the Readers who have been given promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. By introducing Clause 12(iii), the respondents have created a class within the case of Readers, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 22 of the University Statutes. Both the schemes of promotion are approved by the UGC and no distinction can be made between the Readers promoted under the approved modes. The said Clause 12(iii) negates the right of equality by creating unreasonable classification and is ultra vires.

8. The respondents opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the promotion of the teachers of the Universities and Colleges are regulated by the scheme framed by the UGC. The petitioners were given promotion to the post of Reader under Time Bound Promotion Scheme and they were also given increments, in accordance with the provisions of 5th Pay Revision.