Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Asutosh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021
with
I.A. No. 7322 of 2021
1. Dr. Asutosh Kumar Pandey
2. Dr. Tasleem Arif .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Higher and Technical Education, Ranchi.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Nilamber-Pitamber University Medninagar,
Palamau.
3. The Registrar, Nilamber-Pitamber University Medninagar, Palamau.
.... .... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 5316 of 2021
1. Shashank Kumar Singh.
2. Navaneet Kumar Singh
3. Shailendra Kumar Sonkar
4. Manish Kumar Jha
5. Amish Ranjan
6. Amit Kumar
7. Vikash Kumar
8. Vikash Kishore
9. Abhinav Kumar Singh
10. Tapish Verma .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education &
Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag.
4. The University College of Engineering and Technology, through its
Registrar, Hazariabg.
5. The Director, University College of Engineering and Technology,
Hazaribag.
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
(Through Video Conferencing)
------
For the Petitioners : M/s Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Sameer Sahay, Aprajita Bhardwaj,
& Mantra Narayan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III
Mr. Nehru Mahto, AC to G.P.-IV
For the Resp. University : Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate
-----
6 / 23.2.2022 Since the common issue is involved in both these writ petitions
that they are working on adhoc basis in different Universities and are being
replaced by another set of adhoc employees, both are heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021, the petitioners, who are working as
Assistant Professor on contract basis in Nilamber-Pitamber University, have
approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed
further pursuant to Communique issued by the respondent University dated
14.10.2020, seeking applications from eligible candidates for contractual
appointment on the post of Assistant Professors.
3. Similarly, in W.P.(S) No. 5316 of 2021, the petitioners, who are
working as Assistant Professor in University College of Engineering and
Technology (UCET), Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, on contract basis,
have approached this Court for quashing the Employment Notice dated
9.12.2021, whereby the respondent University has proceeded to fill up the
posts already occupied by the petitioners on contract basis.
4. This Court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and
considering the fact that the temporary employees, who are working on
contractual basis, are being replaced by way of fresh advertisement, which is
against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118,
Hargurupratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292
and the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 861 of 2011 (Ritesh
Ranjan & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors), stayed the further
process pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2020 till the next date of listing,
vide order dated 8.3.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021.
5. I.A. No. 7322 of 2021 has been filed by the respondent Nilamber-
Pitamber University for vacating the stay order dated 8.3.2021passed in
W.P.(S) No. 379 of 2021. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel
representing the respondent University draw the attention of this Court
towards paragraph-6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit and submits that the
respondents are not going to disturb the present petitioners and they have been
allowed to continue on the same post. However, the respondent University
may be permitted to go ahead with the advertisement for further appointment
on other posts, without disturbing the present petitioners.
6. In view of submissions of learned counsel for the respondents
University and in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit,
particularly paragraphs-6 to 8 thereof, as also in view of the order dated
23.8.2021 passed by this Court in WP.(S) No. 548 of 2021 and other
analogous matters, the respondents University is permitted to go ahead with
the process of appointment pursuant to Advertisement dated 14.10.2020 and
9.12.2021 without disturbing the present petitioners. The present petitioners in
both these writ petitions shall continue on the post till the regular
appointments are made. If the advertisement for regular appointment is
floated, the petitioners are always at liberty to apply or participate in the
selection process for appointment, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
7. Both these writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
