Tulsi Prasad Chaubey @ T.P. Chaubey vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Pramath Patnaik, J

In the captioned writ application, challenge has been made for quashing portion of order bearing memo dated 27.06.2012 whereby it has been held

that during the period 25.04.1985 to 30.04.1986 there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the petitioner; and

for quashing/modifying the part of order dated 18.05.2007 whereby the respondents have entered wrong date of substantive appointment of the

petitioner and accordingly prayer has been made to rectify the illegality and wrong committed with regard to date of substantive appointment. Further

prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order with regard to promotion of the petitioner to the post

of Reader under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute and pay arrears of salary and grant all consequential benefits.

Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C to learned S.C. V for the respondents-State and Mr.

Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-University.

After some argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in

the case of Smt. Kanti Mishra Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 7555 of 2012 and also in the case of Lal Krishna Kumar

Shahdeo @ L.K.K. N. Shahdeo passed in W.P. (S) No. 6558 of 2012.

Learned counsel for the respondents with all fairness does not dispute the submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the specific averments made by counsel for the parties, the portion of order as contained in memo dated 27. 06.2012 whereby it has

been held that during the period 25.04.1985 to 30.04.1986, there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the appointment of the

petitioner; and part of letter dated 18.05.2007 whereby the respondents have entered wrong date of substantive appointment of the petitioner are

hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents, in particular, respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and pass appropriate order with regard to

promotion of the petitioner to the post of Reader under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute and pay arrears of salary and grant all consequential

benefits after rectifying the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.