Disposed

Dr Ashutosh Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education

Jharkhand HC23 Feb 2022WPC/379/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand disposed of two writ petitions regarding Assistant Professors seeking to stop contract replacements. It held existing contract holders must continue in posts while allowing universities to advertise for regular appointments.

What did the court decide?

Incumbent contract holders to continue in posts; universities permitted to advertise for regular appointments.

Dr Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021

¶3

with

¶4

I.A. No. 7322 of 2021

¶5

Dr. Asutosh Kumar Pandey

¶6

Dr. Tasleem Arif

¶7

…. …. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of

¶10

Higher and Technical Education, Ranchi.

¶11

The Vice Chancellor, Nilamber-Pitamber University Medninagar, Palamau.

¶12

The Registrar, Nilamber-Pitamber University Medninagar, Palamau. …. …. Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

W.P.(S) No. 5316 of 2021

¶15

Shashank Kumar Singh.

¶16

Navaneet Kumar Singh

¶17

Shailendra Kumar Sonkar

¶18

Manish Kumar Jha

¶19

Amish Ranjan

¶20

Amit Kumar

¶21

Vikash Kumar

¶22

Vikash Kishore

¶23

Abhinav Kumar Singh

¶24

Tapish Verma …. …. Petitioners Versus

¶25

The State of Jharkhand.

¶26

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶27

The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag. 4. The University College of Engineering and Technology, through its Registrar, Hazariabg.

¶28

The Director, University College of Engineering and Technology, Hazaribag.

¶29

…. …. Respondents ------

¶30

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK (Through Video Conferencing)

¶31

For the Petitioners	------ : M/s Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Sameer Sahay, Aprajita Bhardwaj, & Mantra Narayan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent-State	: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III Mr. Nehru Mahto, AC to G.P.-IV
For the Resp. University	: Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate -----

¶32

6 / 23.2.2022 Since the common issue is involved in both these writ petitions that they are working on adhoc basis in different Universities and are being replaced by another set of adhoc employees, both are heard together and are

¶33

¶34

being disposed of by this common order.

¶35

In W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021, the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professor on contract basis in Nilamber-Pitamber University, have approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further pursuant to Communique issued by the respondent University dated 14.10.2020, seeking applications from eligible candidates for contractual appointment on the post of Assistant Professors.

¶36

Similarly, in W.P.(S) No. 5316 of 2021, the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professor in University College of Engineering and Technology (UCET), Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, on contract basis, have approached this Court for quashing the Employment Notice dated 9.12.2021, whereby the respondent University has proceeded to fill up the posts already occupied by the petitioners on contract basis.

¶37

This Court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and considering the fact that the temporary employees, who are working on contractual basis, are being replaced by way of fresh advertisement, which is against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. , reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, Hargurupratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 and the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 861 of 2011 ( Ritesh Ranjan & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors ), stayed the further process pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2020 till the next date of listing, vide order dated 8.3.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021.

¶38

I.A. No. 7322 of 2021 has been filed by the respondent NilamberPitamber University for vacating the stay order dated 8.3.2021passed in W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent University draw the attention of this Court towards paragraph-6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit and submits that the respondents are not going to disturb the present petitioners and they have been allowed to continue on the same post. However, the respondent University may be permitted to go ahead with the advertisement for further appointment on other posts, without disturbing the present petitioners.

¶39

In view of submissions of learned counsel for the respondents University and in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly paragraphs-6 to 8 thereof, as also in view of the order dated

¶40

¶41

23.8.2021 passed by this Court in WP.(S) No. 548 of 2021 and other analogous matters, the respondents University is permitted to go ahead with the process of appointment pursuant to Advertisement dated 14.10.2020 and 9.12.2021 without disturbing the present petitioners. The present petitioners in both these writ petitions shall continue on the post till the regular appointments are made. If the advertisement for regular appointment is floated, the petitioners are always at liberty to apply or participate in the selection process for appointment, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

¶42

Both these writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶43

R.Kr.

Dr Ashutosh Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ashutosh Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs Human Resources Department

Smt Mary Salet Ekka Vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Managing Director And Ors.

Shreemati Hiramani Hans Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Radha Krishna Pathak Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ashok Kumar Purbey Vs Education