SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Prayer in these writ petitions are diverse; may be overlapping in parts.
(2.) Noticing different and in some cases contradictory stand taken by different Universities in different petitions and, primarily for the reason that a decision which at the first instance must be taken by the authorities, still, the State as well as the Universities by filing affidavits in these writ petitions intended a decision from the Court, hearing of these writ petitions was deferred. In the aforesaid circumstances, on 03.04.2017 the following order was passed : "These writ petitions have been listed today by an order of the Court. 2. In different writ petitions, the respondent-Universities as well the State Government have taken different stand. One particular University, my judicial experience would say, has taken two different stands in two different cases, though the issue involved is same or similar. In all these writ petitions, primarily the issues involved are grant of promotion from the post of Lecturer to Reader or from the post of Reader to the post of Professor under different statutes namely, Time Bound Promotion, Career Advancement Scheme, Merit Promotion etc. Another issue involved in these writ petitions is, date of appointment of the teacher(s) in the colleges which were taken over in the fourth phase or thereafter. There is report of the Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission which has dealt with this issue still, different Universities have reckoned different dates of appointment of the teachers in the colleges. In W.P.(S) No. 5675 of 2016 and two other cases, the issue involved is, whether the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is still operative and/or the petitioners can take benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme. In the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 451 of 2016], the Ranchi University has taken a stand that, "the University has no objection in treating the final date of appointment of the petitioner as 17.11.1980". In a litigation such a stand is appreciated. A decision has to be taken by the authorities, in the light of the relevant rules and the orders, if any, passed by the Court. The learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State and the different Universities have opposed the stand taken by the petitioner(s) in these writ petitions. It appears that, in the above situation, JPSC also finds itself in a fix. In my opinion, decisions on the above issues are required to be taken by the University/State, but for one reason or the other, it is being thrusted upon the Court. 3. In view of the diversity of issues and the divergent stands taken by the respondents, prima facie, I am of the opinion that a Committee shall be constituted comprising of Registrar of respective Universities, representative of Department of Higher Technical and Skill Development and one or two academicians, which may take a decision on different issues arising from different statutes, absorption, date of appointment of teachers in the colleges, consequential grant of pay-scale etc. and other incidental or similar matters. But, before taking a final decision in the matter, I think it appropriate to take response from the petitioners on constitution of such a Committee for formulating guidelines on the basis of which the respective Universities shall deal with the individual claims. 4. Accordingly, these writ petitions are adjourned by four weeks for taking response from the petitioners. 5. Post the matter on 01.05.2017."
(3.) The main reason for adjourning the matter for today was to grant an opportunity to the parties for "due reflection".;