Absorption of university teachers requires both eligibility and availability of sanctioned posts; mere eligibility does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned writ Court has directed the appellant-University to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order regarding fixation of date of absorption from the date of acquiring eligibility, i.e., 05.12.1987.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the memo of appeal needs to refer herein as under:

(i) That S.J.S.N College, Garhwa became a constituent college of Ranchi University on 31.03.1987. The writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 22.02.1986 on the unsanctioned 5^th post in the Department of Hindi in SJSN College, Garhwa.

(ii) That on 22.02.1986 the petitioner did not have the basic minimum qualification/ eligibility to be appointed as a University teacher. The petitioner acquired the minimum eligibility condition for appointment/absorption/regularization as Lecturer on 05.12.1987.

(iii) That on 05.12.1987 the petitioner acquired the basic minimum qualification of a high second class degree in post graduation to be eligible for consideration to be appointed/ absorbed/ regularized as a University Teacher. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed on 05.08.2005 with effect from01.06.2003.

(iv) That Justice (Retd.) S.C. Agrawal Commission was constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 12.10.2001 in the matter of “State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 to give its recommendations on different points including the issue of regularization/absorption of teachers working in 40 affiliated colleges which had been made constituent units in the then undivided Bihar including S.J.S.N.College, Garhwa.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner was appointed and joined the post of lecturer in Hindi Department on 22.2.1986 in S.J.S.N College, Garhwa, under the jurisdiction of Ranchi University, now Nilamber-Pitambar University, Palamau.

4. The writ petitioner has been taken under the regular establishment w.e.f. 01.06.2003.

5. The writ petitioner being not satisfied with the decision taken by the appellant-University for his absorption w.e.f. 1.06.2003 and not w.e.f. 05.12.1987 even though he was eligible on, all count, for inducting in service under the regular establishment has preferred a writ petition being W.P(S) No.1850 of 2018 praying therein for quashing of the notification contained in Memo No. 317/05 dated 05.08.2005 by which the service of the petitioner was absorbed w.e.f. 01.06.2003 instead of 05.12.1987, even though the writ petitioner has attained the eligibility as per the recommendation of Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee.

6. The learned writ Court, has come to the conclusion by taking into consideration the recommendation of Justice S.C. Agrawal Committee having been accepted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Bihar & Ors. V. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Ors.” (Supra) and considering eligibility of the writ petitioner available w.e.f. 05.12.1987 has quashed the order dated 05.08.2005 with a direction to absorb the petitioner in service w.e.f. 05.12.1987.

7. The said order is under challenge by preferring the present appeal by the appellant-Nilamber Pitambar University.

Argument on behalf of the appellant-University:

8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University has taken the following grounds in assailing the order passed by the learned writ Court:

(i) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the consideration given by the subsequent Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which was headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice late S.B. Sinha wherein the fact about holding the eligibility has been found to suffer from an error.

(ii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has also relied upon Justice S