IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Bhasker Manuvansh, Son Of Late Ganesh Lal Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh Through Its Vice-Chancello - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 450 of 2004
Decided On : 21-02-2025
(A) Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 - Sections 57(A), 59, and 60 - Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 - Appointment of Lecturers - The petitioner sought recognition as a regular Lecturer based on the Commission's recommendation, arguing that the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 were illegal. The court found that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis without a valid recommendation, and that the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 were valid as per the Commission's merit list. The court emphasized that appointments must adhere strictly to the order of merit and that back-door entries are impermissible. (Paras 4, 10, 17, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a Lecturer position in 1990, was recommended in 1996 but did not join until 1999. He claimed that the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 were illegal, while they were appointed based on their qualifications and merit.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner was a back-door entrant and that the appointments were made following proper procedures.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the petitioner had a right to be appointed based on the Commission's recommendation and the legality of the appointments of respondents 5 and 6.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to the order of merit in appointments is essential, and any violation constitutes an illegality. The petitioner’s claim was dismissed as he was not appointed through a transparent process.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
This writ petition is assigned to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and that is how, this matter is listed before this Bench.
2. Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the Vinoba Bhave University, Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4, which is the Governing Body of the P.T.P.S. College Patratu and Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
3. The prayer in the writ petition is made for direction upon respondent no.4 to treat the petitioner as working on regular basis against the first sanctioned post of a Lecturer in Political Science as duly recommended by the Commission. The further prayer is made for cancellation of appointment of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that they are illegally continuing as Lecturers in the Department of Political Science in P.T.P.S. College, Patratu. The prayer is also made for quashing any recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6. The further prayer is made to pay increments to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bihar College Service Commission published advertisement vide Advertisement No.1-1197/89 dated 10.01.1990, whereby, applications were invited for various posts of Lecturers and Principals as required in different Colleges in the State of Bihar. The petitioner had applied in light of the said advertisement in respect of two permanent posts of Lecturer in Political Science in P.T.P.S. College, Patratu, District- Hazaribagh. He submits that the last date for applying for the vacancies was extended upto 16.11.1993 which would be clear from the advertisement in last page of Times of India, contained in Annexure-1. He further submits that the petitioner was called for interview by the Commission and, thereafter, the Commission sent its recommendation through letter no.702 dated 07.06.1996, whereby, it recommended the names of the candidates for the two sanctioned posts of Lecturers in Political Science and the petitioner’s name was recommended at Serial No.1 against first sanctioned post and he was also informed about his name being recommended through a letter No.703, dated 07.06.1996, contained in Annexure-2 and 2/A to the petition. According to him, the petitioner thereafter applied and prayed for his joining in PTPS College, which is an affiliated College of respondent no.1-Vinoba Bhave University, but nothing has come forward and the matter was kept pending and, thereafter the said Commission has further reminded the P.T.P.S. College vide letter No.387 dated 17.12.1996, but it was informed that the process was final and unchangeable and the appointment should be made as per the recommendation. He refers to Annexure-3 to buttress this argument. He then submits that since the petitioner was not allowed to join, he made representation to the University informing about the situation. The Registrar of the University directed the Secretary, P.T.P.S. College vide Memo No. VBL/7264-7265/97, dated 14.05.1997 to convene a meeting of the Governing Body of the College immediately for considering the Commission’s recommendation for Lecturer in Political Science and to make appointment of the first nominee before 7th June, 1997. He also submits that the petitioner has sent a legal notice to the Secretary of the said College. By way of referring Annexure-5 to the petition, he submits that by the letter dated 03.06.1999 the petitioner was finally appointed. He joined on 21.06.1999 and working continuously as a Lecturer in Political Science in the said P.T.P.S. College, Patratu. He submits that the temporary appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Governing Body in its meeting dated 21.11.1999 and notification was also issued in this regard on 07.12.1999, contained in Annexure-7. He then submits th
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India
State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & others
State of Bihar and Others v. Chandreshwar Pathak
Renu & others v. District and Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & another
Appointments in public service must adhere to the order of merit as recommended by the relevant authority, and back-door entries are impermissible.
Irregular daily wager appointments without advertisement violate Articles 14 & 16; no regularization or reinstatement even with prior equal pay directions; termination upheld as backdoor entries depr....
Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act is inapplicable to teachers appointed after the stipulated date; University must process such appointments fairly.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
The court held that the eligibility for consideration in teaching appointments is confined to those appointed before a specific cutoff date, and the petitioners, appointed later, do not qualify.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.