MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to 'promote him to the post of Professor under the scheme of 25 years time bound promotion scheme as contained in letter no. 379 dated 16.2.1990 of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna and Statute for promotion to the post of Professor, contained in letter no. BSU -27/85 G.S.(I) 4032 dated 24.12.1986 with effect from 19.1 .1992. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 17.7.2003 vide Memo No. 922 (Annexure -5) passed by the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 2), by which the representation filed on behalf of the teacher's representative for statutory promotion to the post of Professor, submitted in the light of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 421 of 2003 dated 25.3.2003, has been rejected. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the difference of salary with arrears after due statutory promotion in the rank, post and cadre of Professor is given to him from the respective dates.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that under the scheme of time bound promotion, the petitioner is entitled to his promotion after having completed 25 years of his service and on such promotion being given to him, he would have availed the benefit of posting as Professor with corresponding scale of pay. Earlier, when the prayer for statutory promotion was denied, the 'Association of Teachers representing the' petitioner and other teachers similarly situated, had filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) 421 of 2003, in which by order dated 25.3.2003 a direction was given to the respondents to consider the representation made on behalf of the Teacher's Association and to pass appropriate orders. In compliance with the order, the petitioner's -Associatiol1 had filed representation before the concerned authorities namely, respondent no. 2, but by the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has rejected the petitioner's prayer for his statutory promotion.

(3.) LEARNED counsel explains that since the respondents are the same in the present case also, the respondents may be given a firm direction to consider the prayer of the petitioner for his statutory time bound promotion.