ANIRUDH KANT DAS Vs. MAGADH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to the respondent -University for promoting him from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has relied upon Annexure -2, the order of the University dated 20.11.1987 which will go to show that the petitioner was granted promotion from the post of Demonstrator to the post, of Lecturer with effect from 5.3.1979. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that when his claim for time bound promotion had matured he has also filed a representation which was duly forwarded by the Principal of the College vide letter dated 22.6.1996 as contained in Annexure -3. The claim of the petitioner therefore is that the day he completed 18 years of service on the post of Lecturer, he ought to have been given such time bound promotion. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that as the deemed date of his promotion on the post of Lecturer is 5.3.1979, he having completed 18 years service on the post of Lecturer ought to have been given such time bound promotion on the post of Reader w.e.f. 5.3.1997. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, has submitted that first of all this writ application is absolutely not maintainable on the ground of unexplained delay in moving this Court. He submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.1999 and this writ application claiming time bound promotion was filed on 21.12.2004 and that too without any explanation of the delay of nearly six years. He further submits that claim of the petitioner that he became entitled for promotion with effect from 5.3.1997 does not fit in with the case of the petitioner as stated in his representation filed by him on or before 26.2.1996 because if by that representation the petitioner had claimed promotion under the time bound scheme in the year 1996 itself, his subsequent plea of being entitled under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme after completion of 18 years w.e.f. 5.3.1997 is only an oral claim for which no demand was made by the petitioner before filing of this writ application.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner in reply submits that as a matter of fact services of the petitioner were confirmed only after his retirement on 20.3.2002 and therefore there is no delay in filing of the writ application.