ANIL KUMAR VARSHNEY Vs. VINOBHA BHAWE UNIVERSITY, HAZARIBAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application has been filed commanding upon the respondents for shifting the date of recommendation of promotion of the petitioner to the post of University Professor from 18.11.1997 to February, 1995 by treating his date of appointment as 16.02.1979 and further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.06.1997, whereby the petitioner has been communicated by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University that the Commission has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion as University Professor. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 19.08.1996 sent to the Commission vide forwarding letter having reference dated 07.09.1996. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus to consider his case for promotion under 16 years' time bound promotion Scheme with effect from 16.02.1995 alongwith all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been described in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 16.01979, in the subject of Botany by the Notification dated 07.01979. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader vide Notification dated 24.05.1997, the date of promotion to the post of Reader under 10 years' time bound promotion Scheme was shifted from 18.11.1991 to 16.01989. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee for promotion to the post of the Reader under 8 years' merit promotion Scheme and finally vide Notification dated 27.01.1998, the petitioner was given promotion as Reader with effect from 16.01987. The petitioner applied for promotion to the post of University Professor under 16/25 years' Time bound Promotion, which was recommended by the Screening Committee to be given with effect from 18.11.1997 but the same was not sent to the Commission for approval. Again, a Screening Committee was constituted whose recommendation was subsequently sent to the Commission but the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner alongwith one Dr. Govind Kumar Pandey had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.2146 of 1997 (R) for promotion to the post of University Professor, which was withdrawn so far as the present petitioner is concerned with liberty to avail other remedies. The petitioner has filed representation on 24.06.1997, but the said representation did not evoke any response from the respondents. On being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as University Professor with effect from 16.02.1995 in the light of the provisions of Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner for Time Bound Promotion to the post of University Professor under 16 years' Time Bound Promotion Scheme should have been made on the recommendation, which should have been made with effect from 16.02.1995 instead of 18.11.1997 and the anomaly, which was apparent in the recommendation made by the Screening Committee, has deprived the petitioner of his rightful claim being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that if February, 1979 is taken for consideration as the date of appointment of the petitioner, then the petitioner completes 16 years in February, 1995 as per the Statute, 1986.