AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Similar issues are involved in both the writ petitions and as such, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.Â
Petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to stay operation of result published by Vice Chancellor/
Registrar Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, dated 27.01.2018, which has been published without creation of additional post of Lecturers and
against that post on which these petitioners are working/ teaching for last 2 â€" 3 years.  Petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 have prayed for
quashing the Notification issued vide Memo No. VBU/ R/ 523/ 18, Dated 24.02.2018, under the signature of Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University,
whereby and whereunder operation, implementation and execution of order contained in Memo No. VBU/ R/ 248/ 2018, VBU/ R/ 249/ 2018, VBU/
R/250/ 2018 and VBU/ R/ 251/ 2018 Dated 27.01.2018, have been stayed till further order without taking into consideration that petitioners have
already been appointed as Assistant Professors on contract basis vide Notification Nos. 248, 249, 250 and 251, dated 27.01.2018, issued by Registrar,
Vinoba Bhave University on the basis of the order of the Vice Chancellor of the University and they have already joined their services. Petitioners
have further prayed for a direction not to disturb them who have been duly appointed in accordance with law.
The short fact of the case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 is that they had been appointed as guest teachers for different subjects
against sanctioned post in different constituent Colleges falling under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh in view of Memo No. 2522, dated
11.07.2015 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University and are being paid certain remuneration. It was also mentioned in the Notification itself
that they will be paid remuneration as noted against their names in anticipation of approval of the Syndicate. It is further case of the petitioners that
though they were working on the sanctioned and vacant post in view of appointment letter issued by the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University
and subsequently getting salary also, but the University has come out with a fresh advertisement for appointment of teachers on contract basis. It is
specific case of the petitioner that the University has no right to issue fresh advertisement for appointment on contract basis as petitioners are already
working against sanctioned and vacant post by way of appointment on contract basis. Present petitioners are aggrieved by result of the Assistant
Professor dated 27.01.2018, for appointment on contractual basis. According to petitioners, they are imparting education and continuously working as
guest teachers without any complaint and are aggrieved by publication of advertisement and result thereof dated 27.01.2018 and subsequent
appointment and as such, have knocked door of this Court for redressal of their grievances. Â
The factual exposition as has been delineated in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 is that Higher, Technical Education and Skilled Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand took a policy decision to appoint teachers on contract basis against the sanctioned vacant posts and issued
Resolution with guidelines vide Memo No. 4/Vi. 1 â€" 135/ 2016 â€" 516, Dated 02.03.2017, under the signature of the Secretary to Govt., Higher,
Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which the Vice Chancellor of the Universities were authorized to
constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of Vice Chancellor and to issue Notification for appointment of teachers against sanctioned posts.
Consequent thereto, the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh issued Advertisement vide Ref. No. VBU/ R/1650/ 17, Dated 16.04.2017
and online applications were invited from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature against the sanctioned posts for preparation of
panel for contractual appointment of faculty on per Lecture basis in different subjects to take UG Classes in Constituent Colleges. Again vide Memo
No. VBU/ RO/ 1158/ 17/ 2462/ 2017, dated 13.06.2017, the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University issued Corrigendum thereto in different news paper.
Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioners applied for online application on the basis of said Notification and paid necessary examination fee. As per
advertisement, the Guest Faculty already working were also required to apply for the respective posts. Petitioners and others applied as per
advertisement and were directed to appear before the Interview Board on scheduled date as per notice. After interview, the University prepared
subject wise list of applicants with respective categories for their appointment on contract basis.Â
Mr. Piyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 submits that University had no right
to float any advertisement for appointment of teachers on contractual basis as petitioners and others had been working against the sanctioned and
vacant posts as a guest faculty. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to such advertisement and further publication of result dated 27.01.2018, fresh
lot of teachers may be appointed on contract basis and thereby petitioners are aggrieved by said advertisement and results. Learned counsel further
submits that it is settled principles of law that one contractual appointment cannot be replaced by another contractual appointment. Learned counsel
further submits that in a catena of decisions of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, law has been laid down that contractual appointment
cannot be substituted by fresh contractual appointment and as such, though the University has come out with a fresh advertisement and also as results
have been published for appointment of Assistant Professors on contractual basis, the same is not tenable in eyes of law and are dehors the rule and
as such, fit to be quashed.Â
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 submits that the petitioners have a good
case and in the garb of interim order dated 09.02.2018 staying operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 27.01.2018, they
cannot be denied their legitimate right to work and get proper remuneration. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018
were working as a Guest Teachers in different Colleges and Department of the Vinoba Bhave University. As per advertisement, even such teachers
already working in the Colleges or working in other Department of the Universities, were required to apply against the advertisement and as such, the
interested persons duly participated in the selection process and after due process, were selected. Due to own laches on the part of Guest Teachers,
the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 cannot be harassed or denied their legitimate right to get employment against the vacancies advertised.
The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 have already joined their respective posts and by suppressing this fact before this Hon’ble Court, the
petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 have taken interim order from this Court and as such, the same is liable to be vacated and said writ petition is
fit to be dismissed. The petitioners in said writ petition have also suppressed the material facts that they had participated in selection process and after
being unsuccessful, have come up before this Court and got interim order. The unsuccessful candidates who could not qualify in selection process or
the candidates who even did not apply, cannot be allowed to challenge the result of selected candidates on the distorted facts. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 had participated in selection process and after being declared unsuccessful, they have raised
their grievance and challenged the selection process and declaration of result, which is impermissible in law and on these grounds, the said writ petition
is fit to be dismissed. Â
Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned GA-III as also AC to learned GA representing State respondents submits that the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission publishes the advertisement for regular appointments from time to time on the requisition of the University. However, till such regular
appointments are made, appointments on contract basis are made by the University to meet the requirements for the benefits of the students.Â
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents â€" University submits that appointment of Guest Teachers are
blatantly illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, in contravention of settled Rules and not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, University is taking steps for
termination/ removal of services of such guest teachers. Learned counsel further supports contention of writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018
and other intervenors and submits that in view of the fact that Jharkhand Public Service Commission has not taken any initiatives for appointment of
regular teachers nor recommendations has been made since the year 2008, the University on direction of the State Government has taken steps for
appointments by way of contractual appointment in order to meet requirements. The classes have to be run on regular basis and the students cannot
be made to suffer because of laches on part of the University, State or the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Earlier persons working as a guest
faculty were never appointed against any sanctioned post neither any advertisements were published nor those appointments were ever approved by
the Syndicate. Due process of law has been adopted in appointment of intervenors or the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 and as such, their
appointments cannot be cancelled and the same is fit to be allowed whereas case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 is fit to be
rejected. Â
The legal infirmities and lacunae brought to the knowledge of this Court by learned counsel appearing for the University as regard to petitioner in
W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 may be summarized as under:Â
(i) The appointments were made against assumed vacancies without verifying and ascertaining the actual number of sanctioned and vacant posts.Â
(ii) The appointments were made against hypothetical and assumed vacancies in different Colleges which were never reported to the University by
the Principal of the concerned Colleges. It cannot be assumed that appointments were made on sanctioned posts and as a corollary, the very initial
appointment of petitioners were illegal.Â
(iii) The appointments were made without roster clearance and without any advertisements and petitioners are backdoor entrants. Â
Submission of learned counsel for the University is not well founded. It was the University who made appointments. If the appointments were
illegal, dehorse the rules, without following procedures as envisaged under Section 58(9) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, who prevented
the University for taking any action against the appointments made dehorse the Rules. Surprisingly, till date no action has been taken and till date
petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 are working. It is settled principles of law that modalities and norms are to be followed in case of appointment
for vacant post of Lecturers for the period exceeding 12 months. Nothing has been shown as to what steps have been taken by the University against
such illegalities.Â
 Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 clearly mentions as under:
“35(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no College other than one mentioned in clauses (a)(b) of subsection (1) shall, after the
commencement of this Act, appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of the State Government.Â
 Provided that the approval of the State Government shall not be necessary for filling up a sanctioned post of a teacher for a period not exceeding
six months, by a candidate possessing the prescribed qualification. Â
35(3)Â Any appointment or promotion made contrary to the provisions of this Act or Statutes, Rules or Regulations made thereunder or made in
irregular or unauthorized manner, shall be invalid and shall be terminated at any time. The expenditure incurred by the University against such
appointment or promotion shall be realized from the officer making such appointment or promotion as a public demand under the provisions of the
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.â€Â
 As brought to the notice of this Court that 141 Guest Teachers like the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 were appointed in between the year
2014 to 2017 for a period exceeding six months without prior approval of the State Government. Even as on today, 113 of such Guest Teachers are
working in different Colleges within Vinoba Bhave University without any approval of the State Government. Thus, all these appointments are illegal
and in utter violation of provisions contained in Section 35(2) and (3) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000.Â
On 09.02.2018, W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 was taken up and on the basis of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had
been appointed on contractual basis and serious threat has been given to their continuance as such by appointing another set of contractual Lecturers/
Assistant Professors, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. As no counter affidavit was filed, the order dated 27.01.2018 was stayed on the basis
of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. After filing of counter affidavit, several
intervener applications and W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018, it transpires that the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 had obtained stay order dated
09.02.2018 by concealing relevant facts. The appointment of petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 were neither made on contractual basis nor on
regular basis, rather they had been appointed as part time (guest) teachers. On the other hand petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018, whose
appointment has been challenged by petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018, had been appointed on contractual basis by following due procedures of
law. It is not case of the petitioners that petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 were not considered for appointment along with petitioners in W.P.(S)
No. 1500 of 2018. From perusal of documents brought on record, it transpires that petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 also appeared along with
others but could not get success. When they were declared unsuccessful, they have challenged the said contractual appointment by filing W.P.(S) No.
675 of 2018 and obtained stay order bringing wrong fact before this Court and by concealing relevant facts. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of
2018 are still working and have not yet been removed. On the basis of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018,
this Court had taken serious view of the matter that the State of Jharkhand is not taking serious steps for appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant
Professors on regular basis instead contractual appointments are being made and considering the Judgments passed in the case of State of Haryana &
Others Vs. Piara Singh & others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 as also the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, had passed an interim order dated 09.02.2018 and had stayed operation,
implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 27.01.2018.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, has
clearly held in para-7 which reads as under:Â
“7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational
qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully
participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement
and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.â€
 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, has reiterated the same view and has
held that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners
as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview,
they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or
the Selection committee was not properly constituted.Â
 In the recent Judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt. of A.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 522, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before
the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.Â
The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Petitioners have not been able to justify their case and as such, no case is made out for interference, and same is fit to be dismissed. As the Interim
order dated 09.02.2018 was obtained by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 by concealing the facts and not apprising and assisting the Court
with actual facts, the said order dated 09.02.2018 staying operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 27.01.2018, stands
vacated as the petitioners in said writ petition had participated in selection process as provided in the above mentioned Resolution of the State
Government and after taking part in the said selection process, they were declared unsuccessful and thereafter, they had challenged the selection
process, which cannot be allowed.
 The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 have already joined their posting after publication of results and hence, they cannot be stopped from
working by virtue of stay order dated 09.02.2018. In the circumstances, W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 is fit to be allowed.Â
It is an admitted fact that till date no regular appointments have been made after the year 2008 in any of the Universities in the State of Jharkhand
which are leading to such types of appointment in the University and students are the ultimate sufferers. The policy of the State Government as well
as the University not to appoint regular teachers and functioning on the basis of adhoc/ contractual and part time teachers, are deprecated by this
Court. Even this Court had found in many other cases that the entire Secondary and Primary Schools of the State are functioning without regular
Head Masters and Principal. The entire educational institutions of the State are running by way of adhoc/ temporary and/or part time
appointments. Â
In view of facts brought to the notice of this Court, the respondents â€" Vinoba Bhave University is directed to take immediate action against
appointment which have been made dehorse the Rules, after following due principles of natural justice as till date the teachers who have been illegally
appointed, are continuing on the said post. It transpires from perusal of the documents brought on record that there are 350 sanctioned and vacant
posts in different Departments and Colleges within Vinoba Bhave University. Admittedly, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is under statutory
obligation to recommend the names to the Universities to fill up vacancies of sanctioned posts every year, but the same has not been done since the
year 2008. In the circumstances, the Higher, Technical and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand as well as the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission are directed to take immediate steps for appointment of teachers on regular basis in the Universities of Jharkhand by framing
policy decision within a stipulated period. The contractual appointments and part time appointments should be stopped in the Universities as they are
leading to several legal implications and chaos in the educational institutions. The respondents â€" State is directed to come out with a Scheme in view
of several provisions of the U.G.C. as well as Jharkhand Universities Act for appointment of regular teachers in the Universities for imparting quality
education to the students who happened to be building block of the nation. Â
The Director, Higher, Technical and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand as well as Jharkhand Public Service Commission
and the University are directed to comply the order and direction passed today.
Resultantly, W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 stands dismissed and W.P.(S) No. 1500 of 2018 stands allowed. Â
 Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned authorities including Chief Secretary of the State for doing needful. Â