SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Bihar
Versus
Dr. Braj Kumar Mishra
&
The Ranchi University, Ranchi
Versus
Dr. Braj Kumar Mishra
(S. Saghir Ahmad and R.P. Sethi, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 6246 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.
18642 of 1998) &
Civil Appeal No. 6247 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.
18793 of 1998).
02.11.1999
JUDGMENT
R.P. Sethi, J. - Leave granted.
Finding him eligible for promotion to the post of
Professor under the time-bound promotion scheme and being satisfied that the
respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite qualification, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Patna quashed the impugned notification dated
4.10.1996 and held the respondent No. 1 to have been promoted with effect
from 1.2.1985 and not with effect from 1.6.1992. The Letters Patent Appeals
filed were dismissed vide the impugned judgment in these appeals. The
Appellants, the University and the State of Bihar are mainly aggrieved by the
findings of the High Court in so far as it, after quashing the order of the
Registrar, declared the respondent No. 1 to have been promoted with effect
from 1.2.1985. It is urged that after setting aside the impugned notification
in the writ petition, the matter should have been remitted to the authorities
of the University for consideration of the case of the respondent No. 1 for
promotion to the post of Professor.
2. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 was appointed
as Lecturer in the Department of Psychology in Doranda College on 16.8.1967
and he obtained the Ph.D. degree on 14.2.1974. He was promoted to the post of
Reader on 2.8.1991 with effect from 14.11.1980. On 15.4.1990 the respondent
No. 1 was promoted to the post of University Professor from the year 1985 and
his name was recommended to the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges)
Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission").
Vide notification dated 14.10.1996 the Vice Chancellor of the University
directed the promotion of the respondent to the post of Professor under the
time-bound promotion scheme with effect from 16.9.1992. The grievance of the
respondent No. 1 was that he was eligible for promotion to the post of
Professor with effect from 1.2.1985, after completion of 16 years of
continuous service and not with effect from 16.9.1992 on the basis of
completion of 25 years of continuous service.
3. It is conceded before us that there are two schemes for
time-bound promotion to the post of University Professor, viz., (i) 15 years
scheme under which a Reader can be promoted as Professor on completion of 16
years continuous service as Reader\Lecturer, and (ii) 25 years scheme
whereunder a Reader can be promoted as Professor on completion of 25 years of
continuous service as teacher not below the rank of Lecturer. Admittedly, the
respondent No. 1 had been promoted to the Post of Reader with effect from
14.11.1980 and was selected by the Screening Committee under 16 years scheme
for promotion to the post of Professor in 1990 with retrospective effect.
Vide notification dated 15.4.1990 he was promoted on provisional basis to the
post of Professor with effect from 1.2.1985 subject to the approval of the
Commission. The Commission is stated to have not taken any decision in the
matter upto 6.4.1995 when it asked the University to constitute new Screening
Committee for selection of teachers for promotion to the post of Professor on
the ground that the Screening Committee which made the selection in 1990, was
not properly constituted. Despite the fact that respondent No. 1 was working
as Professor in view of his provisional promotion, he was compelled to apply
again for promotion to the post of Professor under both the schemes but he
was selected only under the latter scheme of 25 years.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
have submitted that as the recommendation by the Screening Committee and
consequent promotion was subject to the concurrence of the Commission and the
Commission had not approved the promotion, the same had lapsed under
Sub-Section (10) of Section 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act which,
inter alia, provide :
"Notwithstanding to the contrary contained in this
Act or Statute, Rules or Regulations made thereunder promotion given on the
post of Reader or Professor or officer of the University shall not be valid
for a period exceeding six months unless recommended by the Bihar State
University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission."
The submission has to be noted only to be rejected
inasmuch as the amendment came into force when the respondent No. 1 stood
recommended for promotion and the effect of the amendment had not been made
retrospectively. For the negligence of the Commission, the respondent No. 1
could not be penalised.
5. It has not been disputed before us that the respondent
No. 1 was eligible for consideration to promotion under 16 years time-bound
scheme. The only objection raised before us, as it was canvassed before the
High Court, is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in declaring
the respondent No. 1 to have been promoted with effect from 1.2.1985. It is
contended, as earlier noted, that after setting aside the order impugned in
the petition, the matter should have been referred to the Commission for
consideration to ascertain as to whether the respondent No. 1 possessed the
requisite qualifications or not. Technically speaking the submission is
correct but when examined in the context of the peculiar circumstances of
this case it cannot be sustained. The requisite qualifications for the post
of University Professor are :
"(1) University Professor : Qualification - an
eminent scholar with published work of high quality engaged in research,
about 10 years experience of teaching and research, experience of guiding
research at doctoral level;
OR
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has
made significant contribution to the knowledge."
Despite our repeated queries the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants could not satisfy us that the respondent did not possess
the requisite qualifications. It is worth noticing that the Division Bench of
the High Court examined the record of the Screening Committee which was
produced before it and found :
"The proceedings of the Screening Committee consists
of two sheets of paper, one of which contains the names of 13 teachers, who
have been recommended for promotion by the screening committee. The name of
respondent No. 1 is at Sl.No. 12 of the said list and he has been shown as
eligible under both the schemes of 25 and 16 years. His total length of
continuous service has been shown as 27 years 10 months as on the date of
screening committee considered the matter on 27.7.1995. Against the name of
this respondent, only this much has been stated by the Committee :
"Recommended w.e.f. 16.8.1992 lower grade."
Similar recommendations have been made with regard to
other candidates also, whose cases have been recommended with effect from
different dates. The other sheet of paper appears to be a formal
recommendations, which is reproduced below :
"The Committee met to consider the cases for
promotion from Reader to Professor in Psychology under 16\25 yrs. time-bound
promotion scheme of the following confirmed Readers :
|