Disposed

Avinash Chandra Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Jharkhand HC20 Sept 2024WPC/6360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to consider his promotion from Lecturer (Assistant Professor) to Reader (Associate Professor) under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme per Dukhu Ram Kuiry Committee guidelines. Court directed respondent-University to treat the writ petition as representation, decide by reasoned order in 12 weeks, and if suitable, recommend to JPSC for concurrence within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of: respondent-University to decide promotion claim by reasoned order within 12 weeks and recommend to JPSC if suitable.

Avinash Chandra Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6360 of 2022

¶3

Avinash Chandra Choudhary, aged about-81 years, S/oLate Gangadhar Choudhary, R/o-Barasoly, P.O.-Bagjode P.S.-Devipur & District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, having its office at-Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand);

¶7

The Director, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, having its office at-Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand);

¶8

The Vinoba Bhave University through its Registrar, Hazaribagh, P.O. P.S. & District-Hazaribagh;

¶9

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Circular Road, P.O.-GPO & P.S.Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-VII For the Resp.-JPSC : Mr. Pravin Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-VBU : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV Ms. Archana Kumari Singh, A.C. to G.A.-IV

¶14

07/Dated:-20.09.2024

¶15

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶16

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith consider and recommend the candidature of the petitioner granting him promotion from the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor) to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) under the appropriate promotion Statute, specifically, under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme in terms of the broad guidelines framed under the Dukhu Ram Kuiry Committee’s report, dated 14.12.2018.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is duly entitled for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor i.e. from Lecturer to Reader, but for some reason or the other, the respondents have not considered his case for promotion and have not recommended his candidature onward to the JPSC; as such the respondents may be directed to take a decision in accordance with law and recommend his case to JPSC.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such, the instant writ application may be disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent-University and if his case would be found suitable, the same would be recommended to the JPSC.

¶19

5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and after going through the prayer made in the instant writ application, the same is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to consider this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter regarding promotion of the petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations by passing a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.

¶20

If the case is found suitable by the respondent No.3, necessary recommendation be made to the respondent-JPSC, who shall pass a necessary order of concurrence in accordance with law within a further period of eight weeks.

¶21

6. As a result, the instant writ application is disposed of in the manner as indicated hereinabove.

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶23

vikas/-

¶24

Avinash Chandra Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Chandra Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through 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

Birendra Kumar Khatry Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Maniruddin Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhanu Pratap Bhushan Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Chairman