ANIRUDH PRASAD Vs. TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired employee of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University. He superannuated on 31.12.2007 from the substantive post of Assistant Librarian. Two years after his retirement, he has approached the High Court seeking quashing of Annexure-5, which is dated 2.1.2002. By virtue of this order, the promotion on the post of Deputy Librarian granted to the petitioner on 29.4.1998 vide order contained in Annexure-4, was withdrawn. The reason for issuance of Annexure-5 is said to be "non-receipt of the concurrence of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission" (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Commission"). At the very outset learned counsel appearing for the Bhagalpur University takes a strong objection to the maintainability of the writ on the ground of delay, laches as well as acquiescence, which is reflected from the conduct of the petitioner. It is his stand that the above three reasons are good enough reasons to dismiss the writ application of the petitioner and no relief ought to be extended to him taking into consideration the time frame when the cause of action arose as well as the time frame when such a challenge has been thrown by the petitioner before this Court by invoking its jurisdiction. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on a few decisions, mostly of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and Another, 2010 8 SCC 701 [Union of India and Others vs. A. Durairaj (Dead) by Lrs., 2010 14 SCC 389] as well as ,(Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2000 2 SCC 615).

(2.) Contention of the counsel for the University would be considered and dealt with in subsequent part of the order but at the outset, the Court would like to disclose its mind that in the given facts and circumstances and the materials, which have emerged behind the decision making contained in Annexure-5 as well as subsequently, it may not be one of those matters, which is required to be dismissed at the threshold.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure-4 would show that the Promotion Committee, duly constituted by the University considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the next higher post. He was holding the post of Assistant Librarian and was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian. On the recommendation of the Promotion Committee, promotion was granted and the benefit accrued in favour of the petitioner. He worked in that capacity after 29.4.1998 till the communication on the basis of a decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor was made to him indicating withdrawal of his promotion from the post of Deputy Librarian. From reading of the said communication, it is evident that the only reason given for taking away the benefit of promotion of the petitioner is non-receipt of the concurrence of the Service Commission. There is nothing to indicate from that decision that the petitioner suffered any kind of impediment in terms of ability, eligibility or non-fulfillment of any other consideration, which goes in grant of such promotion.