SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. Pathak, J.
Jayant Shekhar, son of Krishna Nath Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No.6122 of 2023
Decided On : 10-12-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate, Ms. Sharon Kerketta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG, Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate, Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate Ms. Ayushri, Advocate, M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocates

A recommendation by the Syndicate does not equate to a formal decision for extending the tenure of a Registrar, and the Chancellor's authority must be adhered to as per statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 - Section 9(7)(ii) & (iii) - Writ petition for quashing appointment advertisement and cancellation of extension of Registrar's tenure - Petitioner appointed as Registrar but extension cancelled without proper authority - Court held that recommendation by Syndicate does not equate to a formal decision for extension - Petitioner failed to challenge cancellation of extension and did not exercise available remedies. (Paras 11-15)

(B) Administrative Law - Authority and jurisdiction - The Vice-Chancellor lacks power to unilaterally extend tenure without Syndicate's formal decision - The Chancellor's orders must be adhered to as per statutory provisions. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Registrar, sought to quash an advertisement for the same position and a cancellation letter regarding his extension. He argued that the Syndicate had approved his extension, but the cancellation was issued without proper authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Syndicate's recommendation did not constitute a formal decision for extension, and the petitioner did not challenge the Chancellor's order.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Syndicate's recommendation constituted a valid extension and the authority of the Vice-Chancellor in this context.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a recommendation is not equivalent to a formal decision, and the Chancellor's authority must be respected as per the Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Prayers

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing Advt. No. 23/2023 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as floated by the respondent-JPSC for appointment of Registrar in Kolhan University.

Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 03.04.2023 (Annexure-6/1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2 by which the notification dated 21.03.2023 has been cancelled with further direction to the Vice-Chancellor not to take any policy decision.

Petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith allow the petitioner to continue as Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa till the matter is subjudice before this Court.

Facts of the Case

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was appointed on 19.07.2001 as a Lecturer in Computer Science at New Delhi Institute of Information Technology where he worked till 2007 and thereafter, he was again appointed on 14.03.2007 as Assistant Professor in Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut and after working for few years he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor and Professor on 01.03.2009 and 27.12.2011 respectively. The petitioner worked there till 25.03.2017 and thereafter, went to South Africa on lien to teach in a University as Professor from 2017 to 2019.

It is the case of petitioner that an Advt. No. 02/2019 was floated by the respondent-JPSC for appointment to the post of Registrar, in Nilamber Pitamber University and in Clause-2 of the said advertisement it has been stated that in terms of the Statute the appointment will be a direct recruitment for a period of 4 years and it may be extended for further 4 years by the order of the Syndicate. The petitioner finding himself eligible in all respects applied and faced interview and thereafter has been selected as Registrar by the respondent-JSPC which will be evident from letter dated 12.09.2019, which is the recommendation of the respondent-JPSC. The Syndicate in its 53rd meeting approved the appointment of petitioner and accepted his joining as Registrar, Nilamber Pitamber University, Medininagar, Palamau which will be evident from letter dated 19.11.2019. On being appointed, the petitioner took charge on 19.11.2019 itself from one Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Thereafter, on 19.09.2020, the State Government transferred the petitioner with the same tenure period and scale as Registrar to the Kolhan University, Chaibasa from Nilamber Pitamber University, Medininagar, Palamau.

3. It is the further case of petitioner that he made a representation before lapsing of his extension period for giving him extension in terms of the Statute as well as in terms of Clause-2 of the JPSC advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and accordingly, in the meeting of Syndicate held on 03.03.2023, vide Agenda No. 80-07/23, the Syndicate approved the petitioner’s extension for further 4 years. On 21.03.2023, in terms of decision taken by the Syndicate and also in the light of Statute, the extension has been granted to the petitioner and notification to that effect was issued and circulated for communication to all the persons concerned. Subsequently, on 03.04.2023, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the Vice-Chancellor and stated that the Vice-Chancellor cannot take any decision in the matter of extension of service of Registrar without approval of His Excellency the Governor-cum-Chancellor of the Universities. On the same day, vide notification dated 03.04.2023, the extension granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 27.04.2023 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 2 for giving extension to his tenure to work as Registrar but the same went in vain.

4. It is the further case of petitioner that the respondent-JPSC came out with Advt. No. 23/2023 but from bare perusal of the said advertisement it is evident that post of Registrar in Kolhan University was not advertised ini

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top