RAMAWATAR SINGH Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this application, inter alia, challenges communication and notification contained in Annexure 1. 15 and 18 at Annexure-I is the copy of a letter dated 1.6.1992 from the O.S.D. (ii) Governor Secretariat, Bihar, Patna, to the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University. It informs the Vice-Chancellor that the Chancellor had been pleased to allow the representation of Respondent No. 4 and had also been pleased to allow him to function in his department as a senior teacher as prayed by him. The Vice-Chancellor was asked to take the necessary follow-up actions and to send the compliance report. At. Annexure 15 is the copy of Anr. letter, dated 13.10.1993, whereby the O.S.D. (ii) Governor's Secretariat, Bihar, Patna, as directed by the Chancellor advised the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University that the Petitioner had been wrongly given time bound promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 19.1.1986 as on that date he had not completed ten years continuous service. The vice-Chancellor was, accordingly, directed to denotify the promotion given to the Petitioner and to withdraw all consequential benefits. Following the letter contained in Annexure 15, a notification dated 2.11.1993, was issued whereby the earlier notification No. 1282/G (i), dated 15.9.1986 promoting the Petitioner to the post of Reader was denotified, a copy of this notification dated 2.11.1991 is at Annexure 16.

(2.) For the sake of the record it may be noted that the direction contained in the letter, dated 13.10.93. (Annexure 15) was stayed by this Court vide order, dated 4.11.93, and hence the University authorities were forced to withdraw the notification dated 2.11.93 (Annexure-16) by Anr. notification dated 17.1.94. It is the Petitioner's apprehension and it is understandable too, that in case the Petitioner's challenge to Annexure-15 fails the University authorities are bound to issue a notification denotifying this promotion to the post of Reader.

(3.) At this stage, I am required to record that barest facts of this case as the Counsel representing the parties are in agreement that this application may be disposed of in terms of a consent order. The brief facts which are not in dispute are as follows. The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Law, A.M. College, Gaya, on 19.1.1976. By order, dated 28.8.1982, his services were made permanent with effect from 19.1.1976. Respondent 4 was similarly appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Law, A.M. College, Gaya on 29.3.1978 and his services were made permanent with effect from that date by order, dated 15.2.1983. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was put under suspension on 18.8.1984 and was relieved from suspension on 21.8.1985 by an order of the Registrar following a resolution of the Syndicate; true copies of the Registrar's order, dated 21.8.1985 and the Syndicate's resolution are to be 'found at Annexures 2 and 8 respectively. It is also to be noted that the period of suspension (one year and three days) was treated as punishment and not as duty and the Petitioner was held not entitled to any payment for this period other than the subsistence allowance. It is also undeniable that the Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the Syndicate's resolution or the Registrar's order and they have now become final. Later on vide notification, dated 15.9.1987, the Petitioner was given time bound promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 19.1.1986. This was apparently on the assumption that he completed ten years continuous service (one of the conditions for time bound promotion) on that dale. It appears that in computing the period of ten year's continuous service the authority then overlooked to include the period during which the Petitioner remained under suspension.