Jharkhand High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 18 November, 2008
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S)No.1811 of 2003
Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara........................ Petitioner
VERSUS
Ranchi University and others.........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner :Mr. M.S.Anwar
For the Respondents : Mr.M.K.Laik
For the Respondent no.5 :Mr.A.K.Mehta
5. 18.11.08The petitioner (since retired) while was posted as Head of the Post Graduate Department in Urdu, Ranchi University has filed this writ application wherein promotion of respondent no.5 as Reader with effect from 21.2.1988 and also to the post of University Professor with effect from 17.3.1994 under the scheme of time bound promotion has been challenged.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having been appointed on the post of Lecturer in Urdu in Ranchi University was posted in the Ranchi Women's College where she was working as Lecturer on temporary basis and in course of time, she was promoted to the post of Reader under time bound scheme on completion of 10 years of service with effect from 1.2.1985 Subsequently, she, in the year 2002, was declared as senior most teacher of Urdu and was transferred to Post Graduate Department of Urdu, Ranchi University as Head of the Post Graduate Department of Urdu. However, in the year 2003, respondent no.5 was declared senior to her though he was quite junior to her as Reader. In this regard it has been stated that Respondent no.5 had been appointed as Lecturer in Urdu on temporary basis in Doranda College on 21.2.1978 for a period of six months only, though he was appointed on regular basis on 18.11.1980 but that was against the provision of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. 2 Subsequently, under the scheme, he was promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 21.2.1988 on the recommendation of Bihar State Universities ( Constituent Colleges) Service Commission without completion of 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer and as such, the promotion was against the provision of the statute relating to time bound promotion. Again respondent no.5 without completing 16 years of continuous service, as required under the statute then in force, was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 17.3.1994 on the recommendation of the Commission which was also illegal as the respondent no.5 on the date of promotion had not completed 16 years of service as he had been appointed as Lecturer on regular basis only on 18.11.1980. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that promotion of the respondent no.5 to the post of Reader and subsequently to the post of Professor is completely in contravention of the provision of the statute then in force and as such, the promotion of respondent no.5 to the said post is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside.
However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that it is true that the respondent no.5 had been appointed initially on the post of Lecturer on temporary basis but under the statute itself temporary Lecturer who had rendered services at least for 24 months as Lecturer by 31.12.1980 is entitled to be absorbed in the regular service of the University and under the provision of the statute, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on regular basis on 18.11.1980 and under this situation, services rendered by the respondent no.5 as temporary Teacher is to be counted as service and, hence, length of service would be reckoned from the date when the petitioner was initially appointed, i.e, 21.2.1978 and therefore, when the petitioner completed 10 years of continuous service with effect from 21.2.1978, the 3 petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader and subsequently, after completing 16 years of service, was promoted to the post of Professor and as such there has been absolutely no illegality in the order relating to promotion of the petitioner either to the post of Lecturer or Professor.
Learned counsel in this respect submits that there has been reason for inclusion of the period of service from 21.2.1978 to 18.11.1980 rendered by the petitioner as temporary lecturer for counting length of service as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra as reported in AIR 1990 SC 1627 that even the period of officiation is to be counted in the length of service and that view subsequently was reiterated in a case of Dr. Ratneshwar Mishra vs. The Chancellor, L.N.M University (Civil Appeal No.1196 of 1995) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question which falls for consideration as to whether the period of service rendered as temporary Lecturer until respondent no.5 was appointed on regular basis is to be counted for the purpose of ascertaining length of service entitling him promotion in terms with para 1(1)(c) of the Statute. The relevant provision of statute reads as follows:
1(1) A lecturer, serving in a University department or in a degree college managed and maintained by the University shall on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, be promoted on the basis of time bound Scheme; to the post of Reader, subject to the following conditions: -
(a) .......................
(b)........................
(c) That, he has completed at least ten years of continuous Service as lecturer in one or more Universities:4
Provided that the service rendered in a degree college during the period the college was not affiliated in the subject concerned even up to the Intermediate standard, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of this Statutes:
Provided further that the service rendered in more than one University shall be deemed to be continuous if the period elapsed between leaving the service of a University and joining the service of another University does not exceed the normal joining time as prescribed in the service Statute.
On reading the said provision, the criteria for promotion to the post of Reader is of rendering 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer. The period from 21.2.1978 to 18.11.1980 had rightly been included for computing 10 years of continuous service in view of the ratio laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association (supra) wherein it has been held that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
The said ratio is squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner's service had been regularized under the provision of the Statutes when he had completed 24 months of service as temporary Lecturer and the period of service rendered as temporary Lecturer has been taken into consideration for ascertaining length of service.
However, submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as the statute does not stipulate for giving retrospective effect to the appointment, his initial appointment would always be deemed to have been made on 18.11.1980. This submission never appears to be tenable as statute itself postulates that the person would be entitled to be appointed to the post of Lecturer only on completion of 24 months service as Lecturer and therefore, initial appointment can never be that date when one 5 was appointed under the provision of the statute as Lecturer on regular basis rather it would be date when one was appointed on temporary/Ad hoc basis as only on completion of 24 months service one is entitled to be appointed as Lecturer or regular basis. More or less when similar question fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Dr. Ratneshwar Mishra vs. The Chancellor, L.N.M University (supra) it was laid down that the initial appointment would be the date for the purpose of counting continuous service. Thus, the University-authority or the Bihar State Universities (Constituent College) Service Commission never seems to have committed any illegality in giving promotion to the respondent no.5 either to the post of Lecturer or to the post of Professor.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, it is dismissed.
( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/