Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Public Service ... vs Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry & Ors on 18 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 38 of 2009
Jharkhand Public Service Commission ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry & Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
21/18.04.2022
1. Heard Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. Heard Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.-2.
4. Heard Mr. Siddharth Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State.
5. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for review of order dated 8.7.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No.
3596 of 2004 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Merathia,
whereby and whereunder his Lordships has been pleased
to set-aside the orders dated 15.12.2007 and 16.2.2008
issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
Ranchi, so far as petitioner is concerned and further been
pleased to direct the University to grant promotion under
16 years' time bound promotion scheme to the petitioner
(respondent no. 1 herein) from due date within 4 weeks
and further been pleased to impose cost of Rs. 5,000/- on
the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi
(hereinafter called as ' the J.P.S.C.' in short);
For the issuance of any other order/orders or
direction/directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
Arguments of the petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his
argument, has referred to the order dated 08.07.2008 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 3596/2004 and has submitted that the entire background of the
case has been narrated therein. The learned counsel further submits
that from the side of the University there were two recommendations
so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, one was dated 21.11.2005
and another was dated 07.04.2006 and on account of two
recommendations, no decision was taken by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission and it has been recorded in the order dated
08.07.2008 that the subsequent recommendation dated 07.04.2006 was
superfluous. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the claim of
the writ petitioner was rejected by the J.P.S.C. on 15.12.2007 by citing
that the writ petitioner did not fulfil the criteria on the cut-off date. He
submits that the cut-off date at various places in the order dated
08.07.2008 has been mentioned as 22.09.2005, which ought to have
been 22.09.1995 and such error is a typographical error. The learned
counsel submits that this Court directed the J.P.S.C. to pass a fresh
and reasoned order, which was ultimately passed on 16.02.2008 and
was challenged by amendment petition being I.A. No. 1039/2008. The
learned counsel submits that this Court found that the fresh order
dated 29.01.2008 was not found sustainable and recorded that J.P.S.C.
did not care to give reasons in spite of direction issued on 29.01.2008
to pass a reasoned order. The learned counsel submits that thereafter
this Court considered the matter and also relied upon a judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2014/1997
dated 30.09.1997, wherein it was held that while counting of
experience of guiding research at the doctoral level, the date from
which the students were guided is relevant and not the date from
which such students obtains Ph.D. Degree. The learned counsel
submits that this Court recorded that the experience of guiding
research at the doctoral level was enough and it was not necessary that
the research scholar is awarded Ph.D. degree.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the student who was
being guided by the writ petition for research was enrolled as back as
in the year 1987 and as per the provision, the Ph.D. work was to be
completed within a period of 4 years with a further extension of 2
years' time and the entire period expired in the year 1992 and
subsequently, the student got re-registered on 14.12.1996. The learned
counsel submits that the cut-off date was 22.09.1995. The learned
counsel submits that this Court while disposing of the writ petition
though recorded that J.P.S.C. had disobeyed the order of this Court by
not giving reasons in the impugned order dated 16.02.2008 and had
also failed to take into consideration the relevant records and
ultimately, this Court had set-aside the two orders passed by the
J.P.S.C. dated 15.12.2007 as well as 16.02.2008 and found that there
was no point in asking J.P.S.C. to pass a fresh order again and directed
the concerned respondent to grant promotion under 16 years' time
bound promotion scheme to the writ petitioner from the due date
within four weeks from the date of passing of the order and a cost of
Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed on J.P.S.C.
8. The learned counsel submits that the final order dated
08.07.2008 was challenged by the J.P.S.C. before the Hon'ble
Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 326/2008 and the Hon'ble Division
Bench found that the controversy was purely a question of
appreciation of factual situation and dismissed the appeal with an
observation that if J.P.S.C. succeeds in proving before the learned
Single Judge that the writ petitioner was not duly qualified to be
appointed as Professor, it is obvious that the order imposing cost on
J.P.S.C. also will be liable to be quashed. A liberty was granted to
J.P.S.C. to get the position clarified or rectified by filing a review
petition to consider as to whether the writ petitioner was duly qualified
or not. The learned counsel submits that the present review petition
has been filed pursuant to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 326/2008
dated 21.01.2009.
9. The learned counsel while referring to the records of the case
has referred to both the recommendations of the University as
contained in Annexure-6 which is dated 21.11.2005 as well as
Annexure-8 dated 07.04.2006. The learned counsel also submits that
so far as the subsequent recommendation dated 07.04.2006 is
concerned, the enclosure to the said recommendation was not in
favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that admittedly
the candidate of the writ petitioner was ultimately not granted Ph.D.
degree and discontinued and got re-registration on 14.12.1996,
therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of guiding
a candidate for Ph.D.
10. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as other
eligibility conditions are concerned, there is no dispute. The learned
counsel submits that one of the essential conditions was regarding
guidance of a student for Ph.D. degree and the same having not been
satisfied, the writ petitioner was not having the requisite qualification
for consideration and therefore, the J.P.S.C. had rightly rejected the
claim of the writ petitioner.
11. The learned counsel has further referred to the supplementary-
affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, wherein the orders passed in
L.P.A. Nos. 443, 467 and 468 of 2001 along with the order dated
04.01.2005 passed by his Excellency Chancellor, University of Bihar
have been annexed as Annexure 17 and 18. The learned counsel
submits that the order passed in the case of Dr. Kalapnath Singh &
Others vs. Bihar State University Service Commiaaion & Others has
also been considered by the Hon'ble Chancellor and the Hon'ble
Chancellor has interpreted the term "experience of guiding research at
doctoral level" and has held that the same cannot be interpreted as the
date of registration of the students for Ph.D. Degree under a teacher
and also it cannot be said that on the date of registration a teacher
acquires sufficient experience of guiding research at doctoral level and
fulfils the qualification as laid down in the U.G.C. Regulation for
promotion to the post of University Professor. The Hon'ble
Chancellor has also held that the expression "experience of guiding
research at doctoral level" means experience acquired by a teacher or
guide during the intervening period i.e., from the date of registration
up to the conclusion of the research. So, while recommending for
promotion, the date of registration should not be mechanically taken
as a cut-off date for promotion. The Screening Committee of the
University should examine the eligibility, suitability and fitness of a
teacher on the basis of gained experience of guiding research during
length of time supported by actual research work done by the student
and publication of standard research papers and other materials which
may really be considered as contribution to the knowledge. This may
or may not be up to award of Ph.D. Degree, but there must be
considerable work during a considerable span of time towards
achieving the goal under the same guide. The learned counsel submits
that in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Chancellor, the writ
petitioner was not qualified in the matter of guiding the student who
had undertaken Ph.D. Degree.
Arguments of the respondents
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-
University, while opposing the prayer, has referred to the
recommendation made by the University which is dated 21.11.2005
and submitted that a positive recommendation was made in favour of
the petitioner and she has also referred to Annexure-7 of the review
petition to submit that the same is the application filed by the original
writ petitioner which clearly indicates that her candidate for Ph.D.
Mrs. Prabha Rana had submitted her thesis. She submits that though
registration was done on 12.12.1987, but Mrs. Prabha Rana was re-
registered on 14.12.1996 and though the candidate was not conferred
the Ph.D. Degree, but the thesis was submitted, which indicates that
the writ petitioner had guided her in the matter of research. She also
submits that the recommendation dated 07.04.2006 was sent
inadvertently and accordingly, the same may not be taken into
consideration. She submits that there was specific order passed by this
Court indicating that it was the earlier recommendation only which
was to be taken into consideration and on that basis, the decision was
to be taken, but the decision which was taken by J.P.S.C. was non-
speaking order.
13. The learned counsel further submits that order passed by
Hon'ble Chancellor has been brought on record in the review petition
by filing a supplementary-affidavit which never formed part of the
writ record and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration
in the review jurisdiction. She also submits that as per the application
filed by the petitioner it apparently goes to show that the thesis was
already submitted which indicates that some research work was done
by the candidate, though it is not in dispute that the candidate was not
conferred the Ph.D. Degree within the stipulated time and got re-
registered on 14.12.1996 after the cut-off date. She submits that
considering the ratio of the judgment passed by this Court in the case
of Dr. Kalapnath Singh & Others vs. Bihar State University Service
Commiaaion & Others dated 30.09.1997, the requirement of issuance
of Ph.D. Degree in favour of the student is not a condition precedent
and accordingly, the order passed by this Court on 08.07.2008
disposing of the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner does not
call for any interference in the limited review jurisdiction of this
Court.
14. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the
original writ petitioner has already retired from the services.
15. Arguments concluded.
16. Post this case for judgment on 13.06.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
