Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Nath Tiwari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1810 of 2020
---------
Mahendra Nath Tiwari ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .....Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 4851 of 2018
---------
Naresh Kumar Ambastha ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .....Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 13 of 2021
---------
Shailendra Kumar Sinha & Anr. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .....Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 1019 of 2021
---------
Purnima Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .....Respondents
With
---------
Sanjay Kumar Dey & Ors. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV
Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
---------
11/Dated:-19.11.2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. W.P. (S) No. 1810 of 2020 has been filed for the
following reliefs: -
"a) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of part of the Notification dated
14.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-6) passed in terms of Order passed in
WP(S) No.3375/2016 (Dukhuram Kohri Vs. State) by which the
claim of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Reader to
University Professor has not been considered only in view of the
opinion of the Learned Advocate General that the High level
Committee decided not to extend the period of time bound
promotion without assigning any reason which is condition
precedent but simply says in Clause (2) could not be extend in
view of opinion of the Learned Advocate General which is against
the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court though not
binding but the issue involved in the present case squarely covered
the case of the petitioner without considering the fact that the
Statute of Time Bound Promotion and Merit-cum time bound
promotion of Reader to the post of University professor as
approved by letter No. BSU-27/85-4032/GS(1) dated 24.12.1986
as amended by letter No. BSU-27/85-4099/GS(1) dated
20.11.1987 and corrigendum dated 20.11.1987 has not been
superseded by the career advancement scheme implemented by
letter No. BSU 20/95-2132/GS(1) dated 23.9.1995, hence the
readers are entitled to be promoted to the post of University
Professor in terms of Statute of the Time Bound Promotion,
AND
b) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion
after scrutinizing the suitability and qualification for being
promoted as University Professor under the Statute approved оn
24.12.1986 as amended on 20.11.1987 which has not been
repealed till date and give all benefits thereafter with effect from
the date on which the petitioner is entitled,
AND;
c) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give all monetary benefits alongwith arrear to the
petitioner;.
AND/OR
Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for
doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
3. W.P. (S) No. 4851 of 2018 has been filed for the
following reliefs: -
"For issuance of an appropriate write (s), direction (s), order (s)
commanding and directing the respondents to send the name of the
petitioner for scrutinizing his suitability and qualification for being
promoted to the post of University Professor without any further delay
after due consideration of his case under the statute as approved on
24.12.1986 and amended on 20.11.1987, which has not been
repealed till date by the respondents, to give all the benefit of the
service applicable to the post of the Professor with effect from the
date on which the petitioner had already been entitled for and further
for grant of such other relief/s for which the petitioner is legally
entitled for."
4. W.P. (S) No. 13 of 2021 has been filed for the following
reliefs: -
"a) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of part of the Notification dated
14.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-6) passed in terms of Order passed in
WP(S) No.3375/2016 (Dukhuram Kohri Vs. State) by which the
claim of the petitioners for promotion from the post of Reader to
University Professor has not been considered only in view of the
opinion of the Learned Advocate General that the High level
Committee decided not to extend the period of time bound
promotion without assigning any reason which is condition
precedent but simply says in Clause (2) could not be extend in
view of opinion of the Learned Advocate General which is against
the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court though not
binding but the issue involved in the present case squarely covered
the case of the petitioners without considering the fact that the
Statute of Time Bound Promotion and Merit-cum time bound
promotion of Reader to the post of University professor as
approved by letter No. BSU-27/85-4032/GS(1) dated 24.12.1986
as amended by letter No. BSU-27/85-4099/GS(1) dated
20.11.1987 and corrigendum dated 20.11.1987 has not been
superseded by the career advancement scheme implemented by
letter No. BSU 20/95-2132/GS(1) dated 23.9.1995, hence the
readers are entitled to be promoted to the post of University
Professor in terms of Statute of the Time Bound Promotion;
AND
b) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to
consider that the Time Bound Promotion comes to an end with
effect from 22.9.1995 as the Time Bound Promotion Clause (1) has
been amended but other provisions of the Statute No.17 i.e. Time
Bound Promotion has not been annulled nor cancelled till to-day
which is also clear from the fact that no other statute has been
framed till date providing provisions for promotions of Readers to
University Professor who were promoted under 10 years Time
Bound Promotion Statute prior to 23.09.1995;
AND
c) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion
after scrutinizing the suitability and qualification for being
promoted as University Professor under the Statute approved on
24.12.1986 as amended on 20.11.1987 which has not been
repealed till date and give all benefits thereafter with effect from
the date on which the petitioners are entitled;
AND:
d) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give all monetary benefits alongwith arrear to the
petitioners."
5. W.P. (S) No. 1019 of 2021 has been filed for the
following reliefs: -
"a) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
University Professor from the post of Reader not considering the
validity of time bound promotion came to an end w.e.f. 22.9.1995
and promote the petitioner under the Statute of Time Bound
Promotion as the Time Bound Promotion has not been annulled nor
cancelled till to-day which is also clear from the fact that no other
statute has been framed till date providing provisions for
promotions of Readers to University Professor who were promoted
under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute prior to 23.09.1995;
AND;
b) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of part of the Notification dated
14.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-6) passed in terms of Order passed in
WP(S) No.3375/2016 (Dukhuram Kohri Vs. State) by which the
claim of the petitioners for promotion from the post of Reader to
University Professor has not been considered only in view of the
opinion of the Learned Advocate General that the High level
Committee decided not to extend the period of time bound
promotion without assigning any reason which is condition
precedent but simply says in Clause (2) could not be extend in
view of opinion of the Learned Advocate General which is against
the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court though not
binding but the issue involved in the present case squarely covered
the case of the petitioners without considering the fact that the
Statute of Time Bound Promotion and Merit-cum time bound
promotion of Reader to the post of University professor as
approved by letter No. BSU-27/85-4032/GS(1) dated 24.12.1986
as amended by letter No. BSU-27/85-4099/GS(1) dated
20.11.1987 and corrigendum dated 20.11.1987 has not been
superseded by the career advancement scheme implemented by
letter No. BSU 20/95-2132/GS(1) dated 23.9.1995, hence the
readers are entitled to be promoted to the post of University
Professor in terms of Statute of the Time Bound Promotion,
AND
c) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion
after scrutinizing the suitability and qualification for being
promoted as University Professor under the Statute approved on
24.12.1986 as amended on 20.11.1987 which has not been
repealed till date and give all benefits thereafter with effect from
the date on which the petitioner is entitled;
AND;
d) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give all monetary benefits alongwith arrear to the
petitioner;.
AND/OR
Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for
doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
6. W.P. (S) No. 2008 of 2021 has been filed for the
following reliefs: -
"a) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of
University Professor from the post of Reader not considering the
validity of time bound promotion came to an end w.e.f. 22.9.1995
and promote the petitioners under the Statute of Time Bound
Promotion as the Time Bound Promotion has not been annulled nor
cancelled till to-day which is also clear from the fact that no other
statute has been framed till date providing provisions for
promotions of Readers to University Professor who were promoted
under 10 years Time Bound Promotion Statute prior to 23.09.1995;
AND;
b) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of part of the Notification dated
14.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-6) passed in terms of Order passed in
WP(S) No.3375/2016 (Dukhuram Kohri Vs. State) by which the
claim of the petitioners for promotion from the post of Reader to
University Professor has not been considered only in view of the
opinion of the Learned Advocate General that the High level
Committee decided not to extend the period of time bound
promotion without assigning any reason which is condition
precedent but simply says in Clause (2) could not be extend in
view of opinion of the Learned Advocate General which is against
the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court though not
binding but the issue involved in the present case squarely covered
the case of the petitioners without considering the fact that the
Statute of Time Bound Promotion and Merit-cum time bound
promotion of Reader to the post of University professor as
approved by letter No. BSU-27/85-4032/GS(1) dated 24.12.1986
as amended by letter No. BSU-27/85-4099/GS(1) dated
20.11.1987 and corrigendum dated 20.11.1987 has not been
superseded by the career advancement scheme implemented by
letter No. BSU 20/95-2132/GS(1) dated 23.9.1995, hence the
readers are entitled to be promoted to the post of University
Professor in terms of Statute of the Time Bound Promotion,
AND
c) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion
after scrutinizing the suitability and qualification for being
promoted as University Professor under the Statute approved on
24.12.1986 as amended on 20.11.1987 which has not been
repealed till date and give all benefits thereafter with effect from
the date on which the petitioners are entitled;
AND;
d) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give all monetary benefits alongwith arrear to the
petitioners;.
AND/OR
Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for
doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
7. It is not in dispute during the course of hearing that
the issues involved in these cases are covered by judgment passed
in L.P.A. No. 658/2018 decided on 28.09.2022. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matters
be referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench in view of the fact that
certain statutory provisions of Jharkhand State University Act
particularly Sections, 22, 23, 34, 35 and 36 have not been
considered while recording a finding that there was implied repeal
of statute. The learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid
provisions deal not only with amendment of statute but also deal
with a procedure for repealing of statute.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2016 (1) JLJR (SC) 240 to submit that in the said case, it has been
held that where there is a repealing clause in a particular Act, it is
a case of express repeal, but in a case where doctrine of implied
repeal is to be applied, the matter will have to be determined by
taking into account the exact meaning and scope of the words
used in the repealing clause. The learned counsel submits that the
repealing clause having not been placed before the Hon'ble
Division Bench, the aforesaid sections have not been considered.
9. He has further submitted that on account of non-
consideration of the said provision, the matter is required to be
considered again by the Hon'ble Division Bench and no useful
purpose will be served by proceeding further in the writ
proceedings before this Bench.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has submitted that though the aforesaid sections
have not been quoted but the contents of those sections has also
been considered. He has placed the judgment but admittedly no
reference has been made to the aforesaid sections, which has been
referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the
course of hearing.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon going
through the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 658 of 2018, this Court
finds that no reference has been made to the Sections 22, 23, 34,
35 and 36 of the Act, inter alia, dealing with repeal of statute and
it appears that the said sections have not been placed before the
Hon'ble Division Bench while deciding L.P.A. No. 658 of 2018.
12. In view of the submissions, this court is of the
considered view that the matters be considered by the Hon'ble
Division Bench.
13. Accordingly, these matters be placed before the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice in his administrative side for appropriate order.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
November 19, 2025
vikas/-
uploaded
21/11/2025
