SANJEET RAJ v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY HIGHER TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2020-12-17. SANJEET RAJ v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY HIGHER TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 3356 of 2020 ------ Sanjeet Raj aged about 37 years, S/o Sri Uday Lal, R/o 98 Nil Ratan Street, P. O. G. P. O. , P. S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P. O. & P. S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. The Director, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P. O. & P. S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Vice Chancellor, P. O. G. P. O. , P. S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. The Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Registrar, P. O. G. P. O. , P. S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr.
Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondents-State: Mr. Navneet Toppo, A. C. to S. C. V For the Respondents-University :Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate ------ 03/17. 12. 2020 Heard Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the respondents-State as well as Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for Ranchi University. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents particularly respondent nos.
3 and 4 to immediately and forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioner for being absorbed in the permanent establishment by way of regularization of his services especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been appointed after following the due procedure of law and has rendered 17 years of regular service for the University. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses basic qualification of Graduate with an additional qualification of possessing diploma in computer application. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University issued an advertisement for filling up of the post of Calligraphist vide notification dated 03. 05. 2003 which was published in newspapers inviting application from eligible candidates for appointment on contractual basis on the post of Calligraphist in Ranchi University at a fix remuneration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis w. e. f. 2003 onwards. The petitioner has filed representation for consideration of his case for regularization which is Annexure-11 in this writ petition, but no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner by the University. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for Ranchi University submits that the petitioner may file fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 and the same will be considered by the Ranchi University. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before respondent no. 3 annexing all the credentials on he is relying within three weeks from the date of this order. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.
3 shall take decision in accordance with rules and regulations of Ranchi University and will pass reasoned order and the same will be communicated to the petitioner within eight weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same will be extended in favour of the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. ) Anit
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.