The main legal point established in the judgment is that the experience of guiding research at the doctoral level was enough for time bound promotion, and it was not necessary for the research scholar to be awarded a Ph.D. degree.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Heard Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University.

4. Heard Mr. Siddharth Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“for review of order dated 8.7.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3596 of 2004 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia, whereby and whereunder his Lordships has been pleased to set-aside the orders dated 15.12.2007 and 16.2.2008 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, so far as petitioner is concerned and further been pleased to direct the University to grant promotion under 16 years’ time bound promotion scheme to the petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) from due date within 4 weeks and further been pleased to impose cost of Rs.5,000/- on the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter called as ‘ the J.P.S.C.’ in short);

For the issuance of any other order/orders or direction/directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Arguments of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his argument, has referred to the order dated 08.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3596/2004 and has submitted that the entire background of the case has been narrated therein. The learned counsel further submits that from the side of the University there were two recommendations so far as the writ petitioner is concerned; one was dated 21.11.2005 and another was dated 07.04.2006 and on account of two recommendations, no decision was taken by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and it has been recorded in the order dated 08.07.2008 that the subsequent recommendation dated 07.04.2006 was superfluous. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the J.P.S.C. on 15.12.2007 by citing that the writ petitioner did not fulfil the criteria on the cut-off date. He submits that the cut-off date at various places in the order dated 08.07.2008 has been mentioned as 22.09.2005, which ought to have been 22.09.1995 and such error is a typographical error. The learned counsel submits that this Court directed the J.P.S.C. to pass a fresh and reasoned order, which was ultimately passed on 16.02.2008 and was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing amendment petition being I.A. No. 1039/2008. The learned counsel submits that the fresh order dated 16.02.2008 was not found sustainable and this court recorded that J.P.S.C. did not care to give reasons in spite of direction issued on 29.01.2008 to pass a reasoned order. The learned counsel submits that thereafter this Court considered the matter on merits and relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2014/1997 dated 30.09.1997, wherein it was held that while counting of experience of guiding research at the doctoral level, the date from which the student was guided is relevant and not the date from which such student obtains Ph.D. Degree. The learned counsel submits that this Court recorded that the experience of guiding research at the doctoral level was enough and it was not necessary that the research scholar is awarded Ph.D. degree and decided the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the student who was being guided for research by the writ petitioner was enrolled as back as in the year 1987 and as per the provision, the Ph.D. work was to be completed within a period of 4 years with a further extension of 2 years’ time and the entire period expired in the year 1992 and subsequently, the student got re-registered on 14.12.1996. The learned counsel submits that the cut-off date was 22.09.1995.

8. The learned counsel submits that this Court while disposing of the writ petition though recorded that J.P.S.