- (1.) This letters patent appeal is against the order dated 1.12.2009, whereby learned Single Judge observed that since the Committee was considering the matter obviously about the substantive date of appointment of writ petitioner, the Committee might consider the decision rendered in the case of Dr.(Mrs) Rafat Ara Vs. Ranchi University & Ors., 2009 1 JCR 166 for the purpose of examining continuous service. Learned Single Judge further observed that the decision cited by the State delivered in the case of B.R.Ambedkar Teachers Association & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,2000 2 PatLJR 867 would not be relevant. However, It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge that observation made in the order would not be binding upon the Committee which might take independent decision subject to the condition that all possible efforts should be made to ascertain the correct and complete relevant facts before taking the decision and the Committee would take its reasoned decision in respect of the petitioner, if not all other persons, within two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of that order. The said decision was directed to be forwarded to the State Government by the Committee which would take the consequent decision thereafter.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that instead of waiting for the decision of the Committee, learned Single Judge should have allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner by declaring the initial date of appointment of the writ petitioner, as the issue was not open after the decision rendered in the case of Dr.(Mrs) Rafat Ara Vs. Ranchi University & Ors., 2009 1 JCR 166. It is also submitted that the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on a vacant post in the constituent college of the University and was appointed on 23rd February, 1978 and there he rendered services and after taking into account his past services rendered in the constituent college, he was absorbed in the University. However, while absorbing his initial date of appointment has been declared to be 1st January, 1981, which could not have been done and the past service of the writ petitioner could not have been discarded in this way.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, University and Jharkhand Public Service Commission submitted that subsequent to the decision of the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 1.12.2009, the Committee considered the case of the writ petitioner and reached to the conclusion that his substantive date of appointment be considered to be 1.1.1981 and not from any earlier date. The Committee opined that in view of the statutory provision applicable to the appointment, no appointment of an employee could have been continued beyond six month period, who has been given appointment without recommendation of the Public Service Commission. It is also submitted that for the purpose of absorption, the petitioner-appellant is also given benefit of 24 month past service and that benefit is limited only for the purpose of absorption.;