Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:35459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2211 of 2020
---------
Raj Kumari Singh, aged about 61 years, wife of late Raj
Keshwar Singh, R/o Raj Mansion, Near Hinoo Bridge, P.O.,
P.S. Doranda & District-Ranchi. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, having
its office at Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. The Director, Department of Higher, Technical Education
and Skill Development, having its office at Dhurwa & District
Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Ranchi.
3. Ranchi University through the Vice Chancellor, having its
office at Ranchi University Compound, Main Road, P.O. GPO,
P.S. Kotwali & District Ranchi.
4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, having its office at
Ranchi University Compound, Main Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S.
Kotwali & District - Ranchi.
5. The Principal, P.P.K. College, Bundu, Having its office at
P.P.K College, P.O., P.S. Bundu & District - Ranchi.
6. Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged about 58, S/o Sri Shashi
Bhushan Sharma, Lower Burdwan Compound, Ranchi, P.O.
& P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi.
7. Dipak Banerjee, aged about 62, S/o Late A.C Banerjee,
Church Road, Ranchi, P.O. - GPO, P.S. - Daily Market,
District - Ranchi. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
For the University : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.7 : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. ON: 02.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 27/11/2025
2025:JHHC:35459
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners for the following reliefs:-
i. For directing the respondents to absorb the Petitioner in
Department of History, P.P.K. College, Bundu and grant all
consequential and retiral benefits being pay fixation under 5th pay
revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996, 6th pay revision w.e.f 01.01.2006, 7th
pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016, pension, gratuity, leave
encashment, group insurance and provident fund as the petitioner
has superannuated on 31.07.2019.
ii. For quashing memo no. RU/L/03/2020 dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure 33)
issued by Vice Chancellor whereby and where under the claim of the
Petitioner for absorption as Lecturer of History in P.P.K. College, Bundu
was rejected arbitrarily in the nature of an empty formality and without
considering the documentary evidence.
iii. For quashing Memo No. B/182/18 dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure - 27)
issued by the Ranchi University vide which the private Respondents have
been absorbed and quashing of Memo No. B/183/18 dated 23.03.2018
(Annexure 28) issued by the Ranchi University by which the absorption of
the Petitioner vide Memo No. RU/VC/R/502/09 dated 07.03.2009 has
been stayed.
iv. For appropriately re-reading/modifying or quashing the order dated
26.10.2015 passed in Claim Petition of Respondent No. 7 & 8 by Hon'ble
Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) Commission (Annexure 25) whereby and where
under the Commission has opined that the purported absorption of the
Petitioner is wholly illegal.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner has made following submissions: -
a. The petitioner was duly appointed on 09.09.1985
against the 5th recommended post after due selection
and recommendation and possessed the requisite
qualifications at the time of appointment. Her service
was formally recognized by Ranchi University through
fixation of pay scale and subsequent regularization.
b. The petitioner's entitlement to absorption was
acknowledged multiple times -- under Government
2025:JHHC:35459
letters of 1989 and 1990, by Ranchi University's order of
1998 pursuant to Hon'ble Supreme Court directions,
and by Memo dated 07.03.2009 in line with the S.C.
Aggarwal Commission Report.
c. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 lacked contemporaneous
service records prior to the cut-off date and failed to
meet the minimum marks criterion. Their absorption
against the 6th and 7th posts in preference to the
petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
d. The S.B. Sinha Commission, without analyzing evidence
or considering University's admissions, rendered a
cryptic finding declaring the petitioner's absorption
illegal. Such an unreasoned conclusion contravenes the
principles of natural justice and the settled requirement
that quasi-judicial bodies must pass reasoned orders.
e. Ranchi University's reliance on the S.B. Sinha
Commission to stay the petitioner's absorption and
absorb the private respondents, followed by the rejection
order dated 08.10.2020, reflects non-application of mind
and selective reliance on flawed findings.
f. Having been duly appointed, repeatedly absorbed, and
having rendered long and satisfactory service till
retirement, the petitioner has an accrued and
indefeasible right to absorption from 10.09.1985, along
with all consequential and retiral benefits.
4. Per contra, Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent-University relying upon its counter affidavit
submitted that Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission identified
2025:JHHC:35459
2 sanctioned posts and 1 recommended post in the History
Department of PPK College and against the said posts Lohra
Mahto, Subhash Munda were identified to be working against
two sanctioned posts while against the recommended post
Kalindi Kumari was working. He had further submitted that
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission identified 5 posts in History
Department in PPK College since Ranchi University had sent
recommendation for sanction of 2 additional posts to State
Government before the cut-off date.
5. It has been further submitted in Paragraph 10 of the
Counter Affidavit that since Lohra Mahto retired on
31.05.2005; one post fell vacant and the Commission upon
due deliberation absorbed the services of Dr. Kajal Rekha
Dutta (Respondent No. 6) against 4th Recommended Post,
Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu (Respondent No. 7) against 5th
Recommended Post and Shri Dipak Banerjee (Respondent No.
8) against the post which fell vacant due to retirement of
Lohra Mahto on 31.05.2005. It has also been submitted that
pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the
representation of the Petitioner has been duly considered and
only thereafter the order dated 08.01.2020 has been passed
by the Respondent University.
2025:JHHC:35459
6. Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II had submitted that
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission took into consideration all
aspects of the claim relating to all stake holders and
sufficient opportunity was provided to all parties including
Ranchi University and the present petitioner who submitted
their respective responses and after considering the same, the
commission has arrived at the definite finding and prayed
that the writ application be dismissed.
7. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy and Mr. Saurav Arun, Ld. Counsels
for the Private Respondents had adopted the submissions of
the University Counsel and also of the State Counsel and
have submitted that the S. B. Sinha Commission had taken
into consideration each and every aspects of the claim of the
rival parties and came to a accurate conclusion and no
interference is required.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and
after going through the documents annexed with the
respective affidavits; it appears that the petitioner's
appointment was made in the subject of History after due
recommendation of the Governing Body of P.P.K. College,
Bundu. The petitioner, in pursuance of such appointment,
had joined her duties on 10.09.1985. It further appears that
2025:JHHC:35459
the petitioner was fully qualified for the said post, having
passed the B.A. Examination in 1978 and thereafter the M.A.
Examination in the subject of History in Second Division with
53.25% marks in 1982.
Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Bihar took a policy
decision to convert affiliated colleges of different Universities
into Constituent Colleges, so as to bring them within the
administrative and financial fold of the State. In pursuance
thereof, an agreement was executed on 23.10.1986, whereby
P.P.K. College, Bundu stood converted into a Constituent
College. The cut-off date for such conversion having been
fixed as 30.04.1986; the Government of Bihar, by letter no.
181/C dated 18.12.1989, resolved to provisionally absorb
teachers against sanctioned posts as well as against such
posts which had been recommended for sanction by the
Universities. Pursuant to the said decision, Ranchi University
forwarded the names of teachers for absorption, in which the
name of the petitioner was also included. However, her name
was placed under the category of "pending for enquiry" on the
limited ground as to whether she fulfilled the requisite
qualifications.
2025:JHHC:35459
9. Thereafter, by a subsequent communication being letter
no. 36/C dated 24.02.1990, the Respondent-State directed
that a final decision be taken in respect of teachers whose
cases were kept in the "pending for enquiry" category under
the earlier letter dated 18.12.1989 and directed that
absorption be extended to such teachers.
In view of the said direction, the petitioner's case was re-
examined and was found eligible in accordance with the
criteria laid down under letter no. 181/C dated 18.12.1989
and letter no. 36/C dated 24.02.1990. Consequent thereto,
Ranchi University, vide order dated 13.06.1990, directed
payment of regular salary to the petitioner.
10. Subsequently, a vigilance enquiry was initiated by the
respondent-State in relation to appointments of lecturers and
other employees of different Constituent Colleges. Thus, in
apprehension that the services of teaching and non-teaching
staff, including that of the petitioner, might be disturbed; a
writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995, was instituted
before the Patna High Court.
By order dated 31.01.1997, the Division Bench of the
Patna Court allowed the said writ petition, granted status quo
and directed the Universities to consider the cases of
2025:JHHC:35459
employees of Constituent Colleges, of which the petitioner
was also one of them.
11. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the
Division Bench of the Patna High Court, Ranchi University,
vide Memo No. 3315 dated 04.10.1998, proceeded to
regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective
effect from 10.09.1985, i.e. the date of her initial joining. The
petitioner's name was placed at serial no. 4 of the said order.
12. Aggrieved by order dated 31.01.1997 passed in C.W.J.C
No. 4021/ 1995, the State of Bihar preferred Appeal before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to settle the dispute, One-
Man Commission of Hon'ble Justice S.C Agarwal was made
with following terms of reference: -
"1. How many sanctioned posts of teachers and non-teaching
employees were there in the 40 colleges which were converted into
constituent colleges pursuant to the sanction letter dated 19.8.1986
of the State of Bihar?
2. How many proposals with regard to creation of posts for
teachers and non-teaching employees had been submitted to the
Education Department of the State of Bihar or University before
30.4.1986, the cut-off date mentioned in Appendix 'Kha' (pp.208 of
SLP) with respect to 36 colleges converted into constituent colleges
as per Government letter dated 19.8.1986? (List of colleges is at
Page 206-207 of SLP and other dates mentioned in Government
communications in respect of four other colleges.)
3. How many teachers and non-teaching employees seeking
absorption in the constituent colleges were not appointed through
selections made by the Bihar State University (Constituent College)
Service Commission and whether they possess the basic
qualifications prescribed by the Act and Statues? This exercise will
2025:JHHC:35459
be without prejudice to the contention of the respondents that
Section 57A is not applicable to such selection, as has been held by
the High Court in its judgment.
4. How many teachers and non-teaching employees would be
entitled to absorption on the basis of the Government letter dated
19.8.1986 and Appendix 'Kha' and the agreement entered into
between the University concerned and the constituent college under
Section 4(14) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and other
orders of Government."
13. The S.C Agarwal Commission submitted the report on
19.12.2003 with following note as mentioned below: -
(i) The Screening Committee constituted by the universities had
identified three types of posts namely: (a) sanctioned posts, (b)
posts in respect of which recommendations had been sent by the
University to the State Government upto the cutoff date and (c)
posts for which recommendations were sent by the University to
the State Government after the cutoff date which no
recommendations were sent by the University.
(ii) Teachers appointed and working in the first two categories
were considered as eligible to be absorbed by the University.
(iii) The expression "high second class" as prescribed in the
eligibility requirement would mean securing 52.5% or more marks
(iv) The list of teachers who are eligible to be considered for
absorption has been prepared without considering the letter no.
181/C dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure 7) and letter no. 36/C dated
24.02.1990.
(v) Teachers appointed against sanctioned posts who did not
possess the requisite qualifications on the date of appointment but
attained qualification subsequently become eligible for absorption
and placed at bottom of sanctioned posts
(vi) Teachers appointed against posts recommended upto the
cutoff date who did not possess the requisite qualification on the
date of appointment but attained qualification subsequently,
became eligible for absorption and were to be placed.
(vii) Subsequent to the date of conversion of the college, some
vacancies would have arisen on account of retirement or death of
teachers whose services were absorbed. Such vacancies can be
filled by absorbing those teachers who had already been working
in the college on the date of conversion and had the requisite
qualification.
2025:JHHC:35459
14. It appears that the petitioner fulfilled all the
requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Hon'ble
Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission Report. The eligibility
criteria laid down therein constituted the touchstone and
benchmark for absorption of teachers of affiliated colleges
which were converted into constituent colleges and were
intended to ensure a uniform and transparent mechanism.
The petitioner had passed the B.A. Examination in 1978
and thereafter the M.A. Examination in the subject of History
in Second Division with 53.25% marks in 1982. Thus, she
clearly satisfied the minimum academic standards prescribed
for absorption to the post of Lecturer in History.
15. Further, the Ranchi University itself, vide Memo No.
RU/VC/R/502/09 dated 07.03.2009, proceeded to once
again absorb the services of the petitioner on the said post,
specifically in terms of the Hon'ble Justice S.C. Aggarwal
Commission Report, Vol. I, at page 65.
It further appears that before the Hon'ble Justice S.C.
Aggarwal Commission, Ranchi University filed a
Supplementary Affidavit enclosing the list of teachers working
against recommended posts, wherein the petitioner's name
was categorically reflected at Serial No. 1 against the 5th
2025:JHHC:35459
recommended post (Annexure-15 to the writ applications). In
the very same Supplementary Affidavit, with respect to
private Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, the University itself admitted
in unequivocal terms that there was no evidence of work
reports or salary payment records prior to the cut-off date of
30.04.1986.
16. It further transpires that the private respondents,
namely A.K. Sharma and Dipak Banerjee, were further shown
to have secured less than 53.25% marks in the M.A.
Examination. This admission of the University, is fatal to the
claims of the private respondents, as it demonstrates that
they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the
Hon'ble Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission Report.
Despite such categorical admissions and documentary
findings, the petitioner, who was duly recommended against
the 5th recommended post, was arbitrarily sidelined. Instead,
Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, who were only shown against the 6th
and 7th recommended posts, and who admittedly lacked both
the requisite eligibility qualifications and proof of service prior
to the cut-off date, were considered and absorbed.
Such action on the part of the respondents is wholly
arbitrary, perverse, contrary to record, and in direct
2025:JHHC:35459
contravention of the binding directions contained in the
Hon'ble Justice S.C. Aggarwal Commission Report. As a
matter of fact, by acting in flagrant disregard of the binding
norms of the S.C. Aggarwal Commission, the respondents
have frustrated the legitimate and accrued right of the
petitioner to be absorbed against the 5th recommended post.
17. It is also apparent that the Hon'ble Justice S.C.
Aggarwal Commission, after detailed examination of records
and service particulars, recognized two sanctioned posts and
one recommended post in the Department of History, P.P.K.
College, Bundu. Against these three posts, three persons,
namely Sri Lohra Mahto, Sri Subhash Munda and the
petitioner, Smt. Kalindi Kumari, were found fit for absorption.
Accordingly, these three persons were duly absorbed in terms
of the Commission's recommendations.
Subsequently, one of the absorbed teachers, namely Sri
Lohra Mahto, who had been absorbed against a sanctioned
post, retired from service on 31.05.2005, thereby creating a
vacancy in the Department. The Hon'ble Justice S.C.
Aggarwal Commission itself had provided that absorption of
eligible teachers could be effected against vacancies arising
out of retirement or death of incumbents. In spite of such
2025:JHHC:35459
provision, the respondents did not grant the petitioner
absorption against the said vacancy.
Instead, Dr. K.R. Dutta, was regularized against the said
vacant post. However, Ranchi University thereafter absorbed
Dr. Dutta in a different institution, namely K.C.B. College,
Bero. The effect of this administrative act is that the post
from which Sri Lohra Mahto retired in P.P.K. College, Bundu,
has continued to remain vacant.
18. Ultimately, the petitioner was absorbed vide order dated
07.03.2009 in express terms of the Commission's
recommendations, and thereafter, on 22.08.2009, the pay
fixation of the petitioner under the 5th Pay Revision was duly
approved (Annexure-19).
It further appears that from the report of the S.C.
Aggarwal Commission, new litigation arose with regard to the
payment of salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff of the
constituent colleges. The orders passed by the Patna High
Court in this regard came to be challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.A. No. 12591 of 2010. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, by order dated 19.08.2013, was pleased to constitute a
One-Man Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B.
2025:JHHC:35459
Sinha, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, for re-
examining the matter.
Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, who had earlier failed to satisfy
the eligibility requirements before the S.C. Aggarwal
Commission, sought to reagitate their claims before the newly
constituted S.B. Sinha Commission. They filed their claims
therein and impleaded the petitioner as a party. The
petitioner, in turn, filed a detailed reply opposing their
claims, and Ranchi University also filed its response before
the S.B. Sinha Commission. Significantly, the stand taken by
the University before the S.B. Sinha Commission was
consistent with the stand it had earlier taken before the S.C.
Aggarwal Commission, thereby reinforcing the position that
the petitioner was duly qualified and eligible; whereas the
private respondents failed to meet the prescribed criteria.
19. Despite these consistent disclosures by the University,
and despite the petitioner's continuous service against the
5th recommended post since 1985, the report of the Hon'ble
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, in so far as it pertains to the
petitioner, is confined to a solitary conclusion that the
absorption of the petitioner was illegal and that Respondent
No. 8 should be adjusted against the vacant post.
2025:JHHC:35459
It appears that such an important conclusion, carrying
serious civil consequences, was returned in a cryptic fashion,
without any discussion of the evidence, evaluation of rival
claims, or analysis of the material placed before the
Commission.
20. The Commission did not address the crucial fact that
the petitioner had been serving continuously against the 5th
recommended post since 1985. Equally, the Commission
overlooked the consistent stand of Ranchi University,
reiterated before both the S.C. Aggarwal Commission and
again before the S.B. Sinha Commission, that no
contemporaneous records of employment or salary payments
were available in respect of the private respondents.
These admissions went to the root of the matter and
were directly relevant for determining eligibility. By omitting
to consider them, the Commission failed to apply its mind to
the most material aspects of the case.
21. The order dated 26.10.2015 rejecting the petitioner's
claim does not disclose any reasoning that would enable a
reader to discern the basis of the conclusion. A bare
assertion, unsupported by reasons, is no substitute for a
finding arrived at upon proper appreciation of evidence. It is a
2025:JHHC:35459
settled principle of law that authorities exercising quasi-
judicial functions are required to act fairly, consider all
relevant materials, eschew irrelevant considerations, and
record reasons that demonstrate due application of mind. The
absence of such reasoning renders the finding legally
vulnerable.
Further the respondents have not produced any proof or
contemporaneous documents to even suggest that
Respondent Nos. 6 & 7were ever appointed to or working in
P.P.K. College, Bundu. In the absence of such foundational
evidence, the claim of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 cannot, in any
event, be placed on a higher pedestal than that of the
petitioner, who had been duly appointed in 1985, and was
continuously serving against the 5th recommended post, and
possessed the requisite qualifications for the post as on the
date of her appointment.
22. It further appears that by placing reliance upon the
report of the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, the
respondent-University issued Memo No. B/183/18 dated
23.03.2018, whereby the absorption of the petitioner as
Lecturer in History, P.P.K. College, Bundu, earlier recognized
under Memo No. RU/VC/R/502/09 dated 07.03.2009, was
2025:JHHC:35459
stayed. By the very same Memo dated 23.03.2018, Ranchi
University purported to absorb the services of Dr. K.R. Dutta,
A.K. Sharma and Dipak Banerjee. Such action, taken despite
the lack of records in support of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, and
in disregard of the petitioner's prior appointment and
qualifications, is per se arbitrary and unsustainable.
23. Further, the report of the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha
Commission gave rise to a spate of litigations across different
universities, as many teaching and non-teaching employees
were aggrieved by the adverse findings recorded therein.
Several of them, being dissatisfied, approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of appeals. One such matter came to
be registered as Krishna Nand Yadav & Ors. v. Magadh
University & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017. After
hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased
to pass an order dated 31.08.2017. The relevant part of the
said order reads as follows:
"21. With respect to the cases of incumbents not found fit for acceptance by the
Commission. They are free to approach the concerned High Court, as prayed, for
redressal of their grievance, if they so desire. In case petitions are filed before
the High Courts, it is expected that petitions would be dealt with as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of one year."
24. Aggrieved by the arbitrary actions of the respondent-
University, the petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court in W.P. (S) No. 2486 of 2018. In the said writ petition,
2025:JHHC:35459
this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law.
Further the University, instead of complying with the
true spirit of the Court's direction, rejected the claim of the
petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2020. The said rejection
order is nothing but an empty formality, as it has been
passed in an arbitrary manner without appreciating or even
referring to the evidences available on record.
The University failed to take into account its own stand
and admissions recorded before the Hon'ble Justice S.B.
Sinha Commission, wherein it had itself disclosed that no
evidence of work or salary existed in respect of the private
respondents. The rejection order thus demonstrates complete
non-application of mind.
The respondent-University, in justification of its
decision, has taken the stand that both the petitioner and the
private respondents were working under Ranchi University
and that the petitioner's case could not be considered in view
of the findings recorded by the S.B. Sinha Commission. Their
contention is that they were bound by the Commission's
report and, accordingly, proceeded to absorb the services of
2025:JHHC:35459
the private respondents. Such a contention cannot with stand
scrutiny, in as much as, the University cannot rely upon the
findings of the Commission selectively, especially when the
same Commission had failed to consider the
contemporaneous records and had recorded conclusions in a
cryptic manner.
The respondent-University, on several occasions,
acknowledged the petitioner's eligibility and entitlement
through orders of pay fixation and absorption, has
nevertheless proceeded to reject her claim in the guise of
mechanically following the report of the Hon'ble Justice S.B.
Sinha Commission. The impugned decision does not disclose
any independent reasoning and, instead, rests upon
contradictory observations that stand in stark contrast to the
University's own prior admissions and records. Such an
approach, bereft of rational justification and marked by
inconsistency, amounts to arbitrariness and reflects non-
application of mind, rendering the rejection of the petitioner's
absorption legally unsustainable.
25. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it becomes
manifest that the petitioner had already been absorbed twice
by the respondent-University. First, when her services were
2025:JHHC:35459
recognized in terms of the Hon'ble S.C. Aggarwal Commission
Report against the 5th recommended post; and second, when
by Memo No. RU/VC/R/502/09 dated 07.03.2009, her
absorption was reiterated and her pay fixation was approved.
The petitioner continued to work with the respondent-
University with utmost dedication and satisfaction until her
retirement.
26. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed
and set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The
respondent-State and the Ranchi University are directed to
absorb the petitioner in service against the 5th recommended
vacant post with effect from her initial date of appointment,
i.e., 10.09.1985, and the said respondents are also directed
to pay all the consequential benefits and monetary benefits
flowing therefrom. The denial of such benefits, despite
repeated recognition by the respondent-University itself, is
arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law.
27. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending
I.As., if any also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
November 27, 2025
Amardeep/-
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded
27/11/2025
