Jharkhand High Court
Amber Kachchap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6006 of 2018
-----
Amber Kachchap, S/o Late Beny Kachchap ------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Vinoba Bhave University, through its Vice Chancellor, P.O. and P.S. Sadar,
District- Hazaribagh
3.Vinoba Bhave University through its Registrar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District-
Hazaribagh
4.Secretary, Human Resources Department (Higher Education), Jharkhand,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
5.Director, Higher Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi
6.Principal, St. Columba's College, Hazaribagh
7.Diocese of Chotanagpur, The Church of North India, Bishop's Lodge, Old H.B.
Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi ------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjit Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI
Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI
For the Resp- University : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
.........
11 / 27.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution, the
petitioner has made a prayer to direct the State to pay his due salary,
amount of D.A. admissible from time to time with interest since, he is
working as an Assistant Professor of Geology from 06.07.2013.
Petitioner further prayed for a direction upon the Vice Chancellor of
Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to approve the appointment of
the petitioner as an Assistant Professor of Geology in St. Column's
College, Hazaribagh as similarly situated persons has been given the
same benefit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was
appointed by the Diocese of Chotanagpur and on the basis of the said
appointment he is working as an Assistant Professor in St. Column's
College, Hazaribagh. He further submits that there was an agreement
between the Diocese of Chotanagpur and the then Ranchi University
and based on the said agreement the petitioner was issued
appointment letter. As per him, since the petitioner has been issued
the appointment letter as Assistant Professor in Geology, his
appointment should have been confirmed by the University and he
should be given all the remunerations attached with the same post.
4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent-
University opposes the prayer and submits that there is law in respect
of appointment of Professor of the University. In breach of the said law
no one can be appointed as University Professor. Any agreement
contrary to the law should not be taken into consideration. Since the
name of the petitioner was not recommended by Jharkhand Public
Service Commission, which is a mandate of law, the appointment of
the petitioner is void and is against the legal provision. The petitioner
thus is not entitled to get other benefits.
5. The appointment of University Professor is governed by the
Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Prior to bifurcation of the State
of Bihar and prior to formation of State of Jharkhand, the Bihar State
Universities Act of 1976 was in force. After formation of the State of
Jharkhand or reorganization of the State of Bihar, the State Universities
Act was adopted vide Notification No.18 dated 13.12.2000. As per the
Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the appointment of Teachers
and Officers must be strictly in terms of Section 57 of the aforesaid Act.
Section 57 lays down the procedure as to how a Professor/ Assistant
Professor etc. are to be appointed. Except the appointment of Vice
Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Proctor, Dean-Students Welfare, Co-
ordinator, College Development Council and Deans of faculty, all the
other appointments and promotions of teaching staff and Officers has
to be made strictly in terms of Section 57 of the Jharkhand State
Universities Act. As per Sub-Section (1) of 57, there has to be
recommendation made by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission for appointment of Professor/ Assistant
Professor.
6. It is an admitted case of both the parties that Jharkhand Public
Commission has not recommended, the petitioner to be appointed as
Assistant Professor in St. Columba's College, Hazaribagh under the
Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh.
7. Further, from the records, I find that there was only one post of
Assistant Professor in Geology Department in the said College and the
said post was not vacant at the time of appointment of the petitioner
which was made by the Diocese. Further the Diocese has got no
jurisdiction to appoint as an Assistant Professor. This appointment is
beyond the statutory provision. If the petitioner is relying upon any
agreement, the same will be of no help to the petitioner as because this
agreement cannot override the statutory provision. The said
agreement has got no legal standing in the eyes of law.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CLP India Private
Limited vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and Another, reported
in (2020) 5 SCC 185, at paragraph 22 has held as under:-
"22. The submissions of parties are with respect to two Notifications dated 30-
3-1992 and 6-11-1995. These notifications were under Section 43-A of the
Supply Act. Concededly, these notifications are statutory and are binding on
the parties. Any PPA between a generating company and the purchaser of
electricity is subject to such statutory notifications; parties by agreement
cannot override statutory provisions, or such notifications, as far as they relate
to matters of tariff."
Further in case of Modern Hotel vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise and Others, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 620, at paragraph 11 has
held as under:-
"11. We are also of the considered view that since there was no challenge to the
proviso to Rule 13-A(5) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the respondents were well
within their legal rights to insist that at least 50% of the excise dues against
the partners of the appellant was required to be paid in accordance with the
proviso, to get the desired renewal. Such decision of the High Court in our
considered view does not require any interference. Section 5 of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act) provides unequivocally that the relation of
partnership arises from contract and not from status. Such contracts clearly
cannot override provisions in a statute or statutory rules. Section 49 of the Act
stipulates for payment of firm debts and also of separate debts of any partner
by use of firm's property and if there is no surplus then separate property shall
be applied for payment of a partner's separate debts. Other than the defaulting
partner can always claim their loss, if any, from the latter."
As per those two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, an
agreement cannot override the provision of the statute.
9. Considering the legal position that appointment of the petitioner
was neither made in accordance with the Jharkhand State Universities
Act, 2000 and nor his name was recommended by Jharkhand State
Public Service Commission, which is a statutory mandate, no relief can
be granted to the petitioner as his very appointment is not in
accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
A.F.R.
