Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 24.07.2013 pertaining to rejection of application of the petitioner for counting his previous services and fixation of pay after joining at Birsa Agricultural University, which is in the teeth of Chapter XIV Clause 3 of the Statute, as has been adopted by the respondents-authorities and prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 31.07.2009, pertaining to fixation of pay and the maximum pay-scale under Rule 78 A (III) of the Jharkhand Service Code and further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 15.03.2011, whereby the petitioner has been asked to apply in proper proforma meant for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and finally the petitioner has prayed for issuance of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant the due scale after counting the past services in terms of the Statute of the University.
(2.) The factual aspects, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that an advertisement was published by the Birsa Agricultural University, bearing No. 3/04 for various posts including the post of Assistant Professor cum Junior Scientist in the faculty of the Forestry. As per clause 4 of the said advertisement, it has been provided that as per the terms and conditions, the higher starting salary would be admissible to the highly qualified candidates on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Professor cum Junior Scientist in the Department of Forestry in the Rajendra Agricultural University, also applied in pursuance to the said Advertisement through proper channel. After due selection, the petitioner being found eligible, his case was recommended by the Selection Committee, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that there would be pay protection as per the Rules and Notification dated 17.09.2007 was issued by the respondents on the post of Assistant Professor cum Junior Scientist, silviculture (Forestry) and the said appointment was to contain two years of probation. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner was working with the Rajendra Agricultural University, since the year 1995 and after taking lien from the erstwhile institution, while the petitioner was working, the petitioner joined the respondent-University on 15.10.2007. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor cum Junior Scientist (Senior Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,500/- since 1999 in the Rajendra Agricultural University. Chapter XIV of the Statute deals with the appointment of the University post and Rule 3 thereof provides for counting of previous services, subject to the certain conditions. It has further been averred in the writ application that since the petitioner was working on the said post earlier and fulfills all the conditions laid down in the said Statute, therefore, the past services ought to be counted, therefore, the petitioner made an application before the respondents-authority for consideration of his past services and fixation of his pay commensurate with the aforesaid Rules. In pursuance to the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was intimated by the Director (Administration) to tender his resignation from the previous deptt., so that his case can be considered. The respondentsauthorities vide Office order dated 31.07.2009 granted pay protection to the petitioner under Rule 78 A (iii), whereby half services of the petitioner was counted and other half of the services was not computed, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner made objection contending therein, that the same was not applicable, since Rule 78 A (iii) is applicable for appointees of new post, who have been appointed under Rule 56 A. After repeated requests and objections, the respondents-authority issued another letter dated 4.12.2010, informing the petitioner to resign from the erstwhile University and No Objection Certificate be furnished, so that his case for grant of senior scale may be processed and considered as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. The petitioner was having the lien from the erstwhile University, was granted pay-scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- in the pay-scale of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist for (selection grade). Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chancellor against the action of the respondents-authorities. After being assured by the respondents for consideration of the past services, the petitioner tendered resignation, and the resignation was duly accepted by the erstwhile University. But, to the utter surprise and consternation, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents and he was intimated to apply in a proper proforma meant for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme as per Annexure-10 to the writ application and the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Chancellor was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2013. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders, whereby the previous services has not been counted and the petitioner has not been placed at the appropriate pay-scale, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the provision under Rule 78 A (iii) of the University Statute is not applicable with regard to the petitioner, since the petitioner was working on a higher pay scale prior to the joining in the respondentUniversity. Learned counsel further submits that as per Chapter XIV of the Statute and more particularly Rule (iii) deals with the counting of the past services and the action of the respondents in debarring the petitioner from computing his services is in breach of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner after requests to the University and the assurances given by the respondents, was of the bona fide impression, that the past services would be counted but the respondents seems to have taken a summersault from their earlier assurances by issuing the impugned orders, which has given a serious dent to the service career of the petitioner.;