AKHTAR JAHAN BADIE Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the appointment of Respondent No. 5, namely Dr. Sachidanand Pandey as Reader in 1981 as also setting aside the promotion of respondent no. 5 as the University Professor and the consequent declaration given in Annexure about the seniority of respondent no.5 over the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for various other reliefs but excepting the aforesaid issues no other issue has been raised before this Court. As such this Court proposes to give its findings on the aforesaid issues.

(2.) AFTER considering the records of the case and hearing learned counsel tor the parties, this Court finds that there may be some grounds in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which she can urge that the appointment of respondent no.5 as Reader in 1981 is not good in the eye of law but having regard to the fact that the said appointment of respondent no. 5 as Reader having been made in 1981 and the same having been confirmed, this Court cannot permit it to be s questioned by the petitioner after 17 years on the basis of this writ petition filed in 1998. This Court, however, proposes to examine the validity of the appointment of respondent no. 5 to the post of University Professor under time bound promotion scheme.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the case of respondent no.5 was not cleared by the Screening Committee and as such the case of respondent no. 5 for promotion could not have been validly considered by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. In other words the learned counsel submitted that consideration and recommendation by the Screening Committee is a condition precedent for the case of a person to be considered by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (hereinafter called the said commission). 4. -A. The relevant statutory provision in this connection is the Statutes styled as "Statute for time bound promotion of Lecturers to the posts of Readers and for Readers to the posts of University Professors". This Statute was approved by the Chancellor vide letter dated 24.12.1986. In clause 2 of the said Statute it is stated that such promotion shall be deemed to be personal promotion and shall not be automatic but shall be made on the recommendation of the said Commission upon consideration of the experience and character roll of the teacher concerned. It has also been stated that when the character roll has not been maintained before the implementation of the Statute, the cases of teachers who are eligible for promotion as Reader or University Professor on the date of implementation of the Statute shall be considered by the said Commission on the basis of the experience and certificate from the Heads of University Departments or Principals of Colleges concerned in regard to the satisfactory service of the teachers after the same have been screened by a Committee consisting of various officers. From thescheme of the Statute it appears that the case of the eligible candidates must be considered by the Screening Commillee first. In such consideration of the Screening Committee the Character Roll of the teacher concerned is a necessary component and if the Confidential Character Rolls are not maintained, in that case such consideration shall be made on the basis of the experience and certificates from the Head of the Department or the Principal of the College concerned in regard to the satisfactory service of the teachers and these materials must be made available before the Screening Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Dean of the Faculty concerned, the concerned Head of the Department of University and two experts appointed by the Vice Chancellor from the panel prepared by the Bihar Inter University Board and it has been further stated that the report of the Committee which means the Screening Committee in each case shall be referred to the said Commission for its recommendation.