Dr. Syed Masood Imam vs Ranchi University, Ranchi and others

R.R. Prasad

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner on being Later on appointed as Lecturer, Department of Urdu, J.N. College, Dhurwa on 1.2.1975 was promoted to the post of Reader, Ranchi University with effect from 1.2.1985. In course of time, Bihar State University Service Commission under the scheme of time bound promotion made recommendation under letter no. 27/A dated 12.5.1998 for his promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 31.3.1989. In spite of that recommendation, the petitioner was never promoted to the post of University Professor by the University. Ultimately, the petitioner got retired from the post of Reader on 31.1.1999. That apart, the petitioner has still not been paid the amount payable towards full gratuity and leave encashment, though the petitioner in this respect had made representation before the Registrar, Ranchi University but nothing was done in this respect and, therefore, he has moved to this Court for a direction to the University to give post facto promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor in the light of the recommendation made by the University Service Commission as its recommendation was binding upon the University and also for a direction to the authority to make payment of retiral dues admissible to the petitioner.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University stating therein that the case of the petitioner for promotion under 16/25 years time bound promotion scheme was considered by the Screening Committee but the Screening Committee did not find the case of the petitioner fit for promotion on the post of Professor and hence, did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Reader to the post of Professor and, therefore, recommendation made by the University Service Commission is not binding upon the University.

It has also been stated that since, as per the decision of the State Government, the amount towards revised gratuity is payable with effect from 15.11.20000, the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced gratuity and that the amount payable towards leave encashment has been paid for 115 days and, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in this writ application.

Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the University Service Commission had made recommendation for promotion of the petitioner from the post of Reader to the post of Professor, it was mandatory on the part of the University to accept the recommendation and that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced gratuity as it has been held by this Court that the revised gratuity is payable even to the person who retired on or after 1.4.1997.

As against this, Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel appearing for the University by referring to Rule 3 of the Statute relating to time bound promotion of Lecturer to the post of Reader and from the post of Reader to the post of University Professor submits that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered under proviso to Rule 3(2) to ascertain whether the service of the petitioner is satisfactory or not. The Screening Committee having found the service of the petitioner being not satisfactory did not recommend for his promotion but the University Service Commission without taking into account the said report of the Screening Committee made recommendation for promotion and as such, it is not binding on the University.

In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the provision as contained in Rule 3 of the Statute needs to be taken notice of which reads as follows:

(3)- A Reader possessing the qualification of a University Professor prescribed by the University Grants Commission serving in a University Department or in a Degree College, managed and maintained by the University and who has completed at least 16 years of continuous service as Lecturer/ Reader in one or more Universities, shall on recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission be promoted to the post of University Professor, other conditions remaining the same.

Such promotion shall be deemed to be personal promotion. It shall not be automatic but shall be made on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission on consideration of experience and C.C. Roll of the teacher concerned:

Provided that where C.C. Rolls have not been maintained before implementation of these Statutes, the cases of teachers who are eligible for promotion as Reader or University Professor on the date of implementation of this Statute, shall be considered by the said Commission on the basis of experience and certificates from the Heads of University Department or Principals of Colleges concerned in regard to the satisfactory service of the teachers after the same have been screened by a Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty concerned, the Head of the University Department concerned and two experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel prepared by the Bihar Inter University Board:

Provided further that the report of the Committee in each cases shall be referred to the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for its recommendation but where in the opinion of the Committee a teacher fulfils the prescribed conditions and is found fit to be promoted, the Syndicate may, on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor pass orders for promotion of such a teacher on a temporary basis till final decision is taken on the recommendation of the said Commission but in case the Commission does not recommend for promotion, the temporary promotion given to such a teacher shall cease to be effective immediately.

Also provided that hereafter C.C. Rolls shall be regularly maintained in respect of each teacher according to the procedure and in the form to be approved by the Chancellor for the purpose.

From its perusal it does appear that after completion of 16 years of service as Lecturer/Reader one is not entitled to have promotion automatically, rather decision is to be taken by the University in the matter of promotion on the recommendation of the University Service Commission. The Commission would be making recommendation on the basis of C.C. Rolls of the person concerned. However, in absence of C.C. Rolls, the decision is to be taken on the basis of experience as well as certificate relating to satisfactory service granted by the head of the University Department or Principal of the college concerned but before making recommendation, the matter relating to the promotion is to be screened out by the committee on the basis of the aforesaid certificates. On such screening the Committee is required to submit its report either for recommendation or non-recommendation for promotion before the Commission. Upon which, decision is to be taken by the Commission. Thus, the report of the Screening Committee will have bearing upon the decision being taken by the University Service Commission.

In the instant case, the University Service Commission though had made recommendation for promotion of the petitioner but while making recommendation, the Commission does not seem to have taken into consideration the report of the Screening Committee. However, I need not express any opinion about the proprietary of the order relating to the recommendation made by the University Service Commission as the University has still not taken any final decision on the recommendation made by the University Service Commission and hence, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Ranchi University to take final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

At the same time, the petitioner would file a representation before the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi respondent no. 2 putting forth the claim relating to retiral dues including the claim payable towards revised gratuity which has still not been paid to the petitioner. On receiving such representation, the respondent no. 2 shall be taking decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The amount found payable towards the claim be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter.