Dismissed

Dr Pradip Kumar Acharya v. Rahul Kumar Purwar the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2024Cont.(Cvl)/534/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging wilful violation of an earlier writ order regarding the petitioner's promotion from lecturer to reader under the 10 years time bound promotion scheme. The court found the eligibility issue was never adjudicated or directed in the writ order, held no contempt was made out, dismissed the case, and left the petitioner free to challenge the rejection separately.

What did the court decide?

None; contempt case dismissed with liberty to challenge the promotion rejection through appropriate legal recourse.

Dr Pradip Kumar Acharya Vs Rahul Kumar Purwar the… — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.534 of 2022

¶3

¶4

Dr. Pradip Kumar Acharya .......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Rahul Kumar Purwar, Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶7

Suraj Kumar, Director, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶8

Prof. Jayant Shekhar, Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa.

¶9

Himanshu Mohan, Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.

¶10

Dr. M. C. Mehta, Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.

¶11

.......... Opp. Parties.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suchendra Prasad, G.P.IV For O.P. No.3 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For O.P. No.4 : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate ----- Order No.09 Date: 05.01.2024

¶15

The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for their wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 20^th April, 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.2626 of 2020.

¶16

Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.4 refers to paragraph nos.6 to 14 of the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 3^rd January, 2024 filed on behalf of the said opposite party, which read as under:-

¶17

“6. That it is humbly submitted and stated that university had sent a proposal along with documents for promotion of petitioner from the post of lecturer to reader under 10 years time bond promotion scheme vide letter No.225 dated 16.02.2023.

¶18

7. That it is humbly submitted and stated that the documents sent by university was duly scrutinized by commission and in course of the scrutiny commission has found few discrepancies and for redressal for the same commission has sent a letter to university vide

¶19

¶20

Letter No.2639 dated 28.07.2023. At point-3 the commission has raised a query that “As per the Statutes in respect of the qualifications of teachers of University/Colleges (BSU-25/33-2377-GS (i). Dated12.12.1983 The Selection Committee/College Service Commission may Appoint a person possessing good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M.Phil degree or a recognized degree beyond the Masters Level within 8 years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments. It may be noted that Dr. P. K. Acharya was appointed on 28.06.1985 and was awarded the Ph.D degree on 28.02.1996 i.e. in the 12 years of his service. Further there is no evidence of equivalent published work of high standard either Considering that the TBPS is valid up to 22.09.1995 and Dr. Acharya has obtained the Ph.D degree beyond the cut-off-date hence how his promotion proposal has been considered under 10 years TBPS by the University?”

¶21

8. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that the University reply on the above query vide letter no.KU/R/971/23, dated-01.08.2023 Stating on point no.-3 that “Considering the promotion proposal of Dr. P.K. Acharya has been duly screened by the Screening Committee constituted as per the provision of the statute pertaining to TBPS. Hence if the discrepancy which has been detected by the commission in course of the scrutiny of his promotion proposal in the light of the State, in respect of the qualification of teachers of University/Colleges (BSU-25/33-2377-GS (i), Dated12.12.1983 and a decision is taken by the Commission on that basis on this promotion proposal the University shall standby that decision.”

¶22

9. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that thereafter a detailed record/documents pertaining to the above proposal of promotion of petitioner was placed before the Commission in its 11^th meeting held on 04.08.2023 and after due deliberation on the same the commission arrived at a decision that the proposal for promotion of petitioner under 10 years time bound promotion scheme is not in accordance with law due to the statutes in respect of qualification of teachers of university/colleges dated 12.12.1983, hence the commission has returned the above propo9sal and the same was duly communicated to university vide letter No.2858 dated 24.08.2023.

¶23

10. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that petitioner has sought promotion to the post of Eader under 10 yrs Time Bound Promotion Scheme wherein Statues for Time Bound Promotion of Lecturer to the

¶24

¶25

Posts of Readers and for Readers to the Post of University Professors. (BSU-27/85-4032/GS (1) Dated24.12.1986) provides that 1. “A Lecturer, serving in a University department or in a degree college managed and maintained by the University shall on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, be promoted on the basis of time bound Scheme; to the post of Reader, subject to the following conditions:a. That, he holds the qualification as prescribed for the post of Lecturer under the Statute inforced at the time of his appointment as Lecturer and has fulfilled the conditions, if any attached thereto as laid down in the Statute.

¶26

b. That, he holds substances appointment on the post of a lecturer, and

¶27

c. That, he has completed at least ten years of continuous service as lecturer in one or more universities.

¶28

11. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that it is pertinent to mention here that petitioner was appointed on 28.06.1985 and he joined on 24.07.1985, hence at the time of his appointment the revised Statutes in respect of Teachers of Universities/Colleges (As approved by the Chancellor vide no.-BSU 25/83-2377 G.S. (1) dated- 12.12.1983) was in force. Section-3 of the above statutes pertaining to qualification for Lecturer in the service of admitted college states “The Selection Committee/College Service Commission may Appoint a person possessing good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M.Phil degree or a recognized degree beyond the Masters Level within 8 years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments. Since, petitioner has a good academic record however he was not having qualification of a recognized degree beyond the Masters Level and evidently he was appointed on the condition that he should obtain an M.Phil degree or a recognized degree beyond the Masters Legel within 8 years of his appointment.

¶29

12. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that from perusal of the condition laid down in the section1(1)(a) of the Statutes for Time Bound Promotion scheme for promotion of Lecturer to the Posts of Readers and for Readers to the Post of University Professors. (BSU-27/85-4032/GS (1) dated24.12.1986) has not been fulfilled by petitioner because he has failed to obtained beyond masters level degree within the stipu7lated time or even within the cut-off date i.e., 23.09.1995 for availing promotion to the post

¶30

¶31

of Reader under 10 yrs TBPS. Petitioner has obtained his Ph.D degree on 28.2.1996.

¶32

13. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that the department of Higher and technical education sent a letter vide letter No.992 dated 11.8.2021 to commission and registrar of Kolhan university sent the letter dated 19.01.2022 to principal, A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur, regarding the matter of determining the date of eligibility of teachers for promotion from the post of lecturer to reader under 10 years time bound promotion scheme, it is stated that the date of eligibility or date of appointment or date of joining or date of sanction of post, whichever is later, will be taken into account for considering the proposal for promotion of teachers under 10 years time bound promotion scheme.

¶33

14. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that in view of the order passed by Hon’ble Court dated on 10.11.2023, the promotion of petitioner has been reviewed and in course of review, it has been found that despite the petitioner ineligible for promotion under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Scheme, petitioner has option for promotion under Merit promotion scheme as well as Carrier Advancement Scheme. If University sends a proposal for promotion of petitioner under aforesaid scheme then commission can consider the proposal for promotion of petitioner in accordance with law and it has communicated the same to University vide letter no.3916 dated 28.12.2023.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submits that even

¶35

if the substantive date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer is treated as 28^th June, 1985, he is ineligible for 10 years’ time bound promotion, as he had acquired Ph.D. degree on 28^th February, 1996 i.e. beyond the cut-off date (22^nd September, 1995).

¶36

As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recommendation of Kolhan University granting time bound promotion to the petitioner has arbitrarily been rejected by the opposite party no.4.

¶37

Be that as it may.

¶38

¶39

Since the aforesaid issue was neither under adjudication nor any direction was issued in that regard, as would be evident from the order dated 20^th April, 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.2626 of 2020, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out against the opposite parties including the opposite party no.4.

¶40

The contempt case is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶41

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the rejection of grant of 10 years’ time bound promotion by the opposite party no.4 as permissible under law.

¶42

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶43

Sanjay/

Dr Pradip Kumar Acharya v. Rahul Kumar Purwar the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Pradip Kumar Acharya v. Rahul Kumar Purwar the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Narayan Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daniel Bachman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anita Devi Vs Dr Manish Ranjan the Principal Secretary Rural Engineering Organization/ Rural Development Deptt

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India Represented through Ministry of Home Affairs through Its Secretary