DAYA KANT JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents to pay him the entire retiral benefits after giving the benefit of time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1985 with all consequential benefits and has further prayed to quash letter No. 1536 dated 16.8.2000, whereby his claim for time bound promotion has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts, as narrated by the petitioner, are set out as under: The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor of Mathematics on 8.5.1964 on ad -hoc, basis and later, he was permanently absorbed on 22.6.1996. He was given promotion as Associate Professor of Mathematics with effect from 23.9.1980. According to him, Notification No. 379 dated 16.2.1990 was issued by the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, as it then was, and the petitioner claimed to be entitled for promotion to the post of Professor on the ground that he was duly qualified for the time bound promotion during his service period. The petitioner also submits that between the period 1.2.1985 and March, 1989 about 150 Assistant Professors and Associate Professors of B.I.T., Sindri, Dhanbad, M.L.T., Muzaffarpur and B.C.E., Bhagalpur, on the recommendation of the Commission, were promoted and the same was illegally denied to the petitioner and three others. It is also the case of the petitioner that other three candidates, namely, Mr. J.P. Yadav, Dr. B.P. Singh and Sri Prakash were promoted to the posts of Professor with effect from 1.2.1985 but the petitioner was once again discriminated. It is also the case of the petitioner that his file was sent by the Department of Science and Technology vide letter No. 2096 dated 2.11.1996 to the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that the Bihar Public Service Commission fixed the date of meeting on 14.1.1997 but since none from the Department of Science and Technology attended the said meeting, his name could not be cleared. In the meanwhile, the Vigilance also cleared the name of the petitioner and the same was sent to Bihar Public Service Commission. When nothing happened, the petitioner was constrained to file CWJC No. 531 of 1999, which was disposed of on 2.2.2000 with a direction to the respondents to take final decision in the matter of time bound promotion.

(3.) THE fact remains that the Department vide its letter No. 887 dated 23.5.2000 sent the order of the Department's Minister relating to expunction of the adverse remark and also informed that the report of two experts outside the State was not necessary for time bound promotion. The Commission, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner.