Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Saurav Arun vs Mr. A. Allam on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 474 of 2019
------
Madan Mohan Mishra, aged about 54 years, son of Late Srinath Mishra,
resident of Zila Krishi Gyan Kendra, Raghu Toli, P.O. Harmu, P.S. and
District- Lohardaga
Versus
1. Birsa Agriculture University through its Vice Chancellor, Kanke, P.O. and
P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi
2. The Registrar, Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke, P.O. and P.S. Kanke,
District-Ranchi
3. The Director (Administration), Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke, P.O.
and P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi
4. Director, (Extension Education), Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke, P.O.
and P.S. Kanke, District-Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
07/ Dated: 18/02/2021
1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order
dated 07.12.2018 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has
been rejected.
4. The petitioner earlier moved in W.P.(S) No. 4829 of 2017 which
was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2018 with direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the
light of judgment of "Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs.
Uma Devi & Others" reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. Pursuant to that the
case of the petitioner has been considered and was rejected by the
impugned order. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner moved before this Court
by way of filing this writ petition.
5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is working with the respondent-University w.e.f. 10.06.1989. He
submits that the petitioner is working on vacant and sanctioned post. The
appointment of the petitioner was made by the Vice Chancellor of the Birsa
Agriculture University. By way of placing the documents annexed with the
writ petition, he submits that the case of the petitioner has been wrongly
rejected by the impugned order. He submits that in the impugned order, it
has been admitted that the irregular appointment has been considered
whereas in view of "Uma Devi" case (supra) and " State of Karnataka
Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors." reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the case of the
petitioner is fit to be regularized.
6. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Birsa
Agriculture University submits that there are documents on record which
shows that appointment letter has not been issued by the Birsa Agriculture
University however, he fairly submits that the University is in process of
absorbing/regularizing the persons who are working since long and for that
purpose a Committee has been constituted. He submits that Committee has
been asked to consider about the age and tenure of service of the persons
whose cases are being considered in that Committee. He submits that in
the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Yogesh
Mahajan Vs. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences", reported in AIR 2018 SC 757, if the procedure is not adopted
regularization cannot be allowed. However, he fairly submits that the writ
petition can be disposed of after quashing the impugned order and the
matter will be considered by the said committee along with similarly
situated persons in the light of parameters laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Uma Devi" (supra), "M.L. Keshri"
(supra) and in the case of "Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh" reported in AIR 2018 SC 233.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties particularly the submission of Mr. A. Allam,
learned senior counsel for the respondent-University that the Committee is
in-sessin of the matter, the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 is hereby
quashed. The case of the petitioner in terms of the submission of Mr. A.
Allam, learned senior counsel for the respondent-University shall be placed
before the Committee constituted for such purpose and the Committee shall
consider the case of the petitioner along with other similarly situated
persons and shall recommend if found within the parameters in accordance
with rules, regulations and guidelines within a period three months.
8. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
