S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:- (I) For a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader treating the initial appointment of the petitioner as 20.07.1981 (and not 08.03.1995) and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (II) To hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for counting his services from the initial date of his appointment on 20.07.1981, in view of law laid by this Hon'ble Court in case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University & Ors., 2012 2 JCR 153 (Jhr.).
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh appeared before the governing body in view of letter No. 3 dated 26.06.1981. After perusal of the documents of the petitioner, the governing body selected the petitioner for his appointment and letter to that effect also issued by the Principal of the said College. On receipt of the letter of appointment dated 19.07.1981, the petitioner joined the post of temporary lecturer on 20.07.1981 and has been continuing on the said post uninterruptedly without any break in service. It has been stated that Markham College of Commerce was a part of the Ranchi University and as such, the Deputy Registrar of the Ranchi University vide its letter dated 10.04.1986 contained in letter No. 2004-18 directed all the Principals of the affiliated Colleges including the said Markham College to send the cases of temporary lecturers, if any, who fulfilled the requirement of the statutes in the proforma annexed along with all relevant documents/ papers to the undersigned on or before 31.05.1986. The same was done in view of the provisions enshrined in the "Statutes for Regularization of the Services of Purely Temporary Lecturers Appointed on or Before 28th February, 1982", as approved by the Chancellor vide letter No. BSU/25/85-282-GS(1) dated 29.01.1986. The said Statute was also applicable in the case of petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner was appointed on 20.07.1981 i.e. prior to 28.02.1982. It has been further stated that the issue of regularization fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., 1997 1 PLJR 533 and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petitioner with certain observations and directions to the Universities for taking steps in accordance with the communication of the State Govt. In the meantime, Vinoba Bhave University came into existence and the said University issued notification dated 04.08.1998, in which the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 25 and the date of regularization of the petitioner was shown as 08.03.1995. Aggrieved by the date of fixation of regularization in case of the petitioner, the petitioner represented before the University and the same was corrected and the date of initial appointment i.e. 20.07.1981 was notified to be the date of regularization. Subsequently, the order/judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in case Bihar Rajya Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court appointed a Committee and pursuant thereto, a judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Anr., 2005 9 SCC 129. In view of the report of Agarwal Commission, Vinoba Bhave University issued a notification showing the date of regularization of the petitioner to be 08.03.1995. However, the services rendered by the petitioner on the date of his initial appointment i.e. 20.07.1981 was not taken into consideration for regularization neither the said period was declared to be illegal. Though the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case counting his period of initial date of appointment from 20.07.1981 and not 08.03.1995 but the same was not done by the respondents and hence, he represented before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case for promotion from the post of lecturer to the post of reader taking into consideration the initial date of appointment but no order has been passed neither any decision has been taken in this regard. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances.;