"Delayed Justice: A Professor’s Battle for Fair Promotion at Lalit Narayan Mithila University"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around Dr. U.N. Pandey, a chemistry professor at Lalit Narayan Mithila University (LNMU), Darbhanga, who fought for decades to secure his rightful promotion.

His grievance was that despite being promoted under the 16-year time-bound promotion scheme, the university arbitrarily shifted him to the 25-year scheme, delaying his promotion by several years.

His legal battle, filed in 2000, was finally decided by the Patna High Court in 2022 (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12693 of 2000).

Background of the Case

1. Initial Promotion (1985)

  • Dr. U.N. Pandey was promoted as a Reader in 1971 and subsequently as a University Professor on December 1, 1985, after completing 16 years of service.
  • His promotion was approved by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 79A of the Bihar State University Ordinance, 1986, subject to confirmation by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission.

2. Arbitrary Change in Promotion Date (1993)

  • Later, without any valid reason, his promotion date was arbitrarily changed from December 1, 1985, to January 8, 1993.
  • This meant that instead of receiving a 16-year time-bound promotion, he was now forced into the 25-year promotion scheme, delaying his financial benefits and career advancement.

3. Disparity Among Colleagues

  • Dr. Pandey pointed out that five of his juniors were granted promotions under the 16-year scheme, while he was unfairly moved to the 25-year scheme.
  • He also highlighted that he had an outstanding academic record, including research publications and participation in national/international conferences, yet the university had given promotions to less qualified individuals.

4. University's Justification

  • The Lalit Narayan Mithila University (LNMU) argued that the Bihar State University Service Commission did not approve his name for the 16-year promotion, which is why he was placed under the 25-year scheme.
  • They claimed that a screening committee comprising the Vice-Chancellor, faculty members, and experts reviewed his case and deemed him eligible for the 25-year scheme instead of the 16-year scheme.

Legal Proceedings

1. Arguments by Dr. U.N. Pandey

Dr. Pandey contested the university’s actions, arguing that:

  • Once he was already promoted as a professor in 1985, there was no valid reason to change his promotion scheme.
  • His juniors received the 16-year promotion, which he also deserved.
  • There was no adverse remark against him that would justify shifting him to a longer promotion scheme.
  • The university failed to provide any written justification for this shift.

2. Court’s Examination of the Case

The Patna High Court reviewed the following key issues:

  1. Was there a valid reason to shift Dr. Pandey from the 16-year promotion scheme to the 25-year scheme?
  2. Was his career progression unfairly delayed compared to his juniors?
  3. Did the university act in an arbitrary and unjust manner?

After examining the evidence, the court found multiple inconsistencies in the university’s justification:

  • No specific reason was given for changing Dr. Pandey’s promotion date.
  • No adverse remark or negative record existed against him.
  • The screening committee’s decision was arbitrary and lacked transparency.
  • The university’s reply was vague and did not explain why juniors were promoted before him.

Court’s Verdict and Final Orders

1. Promotion Restored to 1985

The Patna High Court ruled in favor of Dr. Pandey, stating that he must be considered promoted from December 1, 1985, as originally approved.

2. Quashing of the Arbitrary Decision

The court quashed the university’s decision that had shifted his promotion date to 1993.

3. Full Financial Benefits

Dr. Pandey was entitled to all consequential financial benefits from his corrected promotion date (1985), including arrears in salary and other monetary benefits.

4. Implementation Within Two Months

The university was directed to implement the order within two months and ensure Dr. Pandey received all dues without further delay.

Key Takeaways from the Case

1. Fight Against Administrative Arbitrary Actions

This case highlights how universities and government bodies can sometimes act arbitrarily, denying individuals their rightful promotions.

2. Importance of Merit-Based Promotion

The court emphasized that merit and experience should be the primary criteria for promotion, not bureaucratic decisions lacking justification.

3. Precedent for Future Cases

This judgment sets an important precedent that employees cannot be unfairly downgraded or denied promotions without strong, transparent reasons.

4. Long Delays in Justice

Dr. Pandey had to fight for over 22 years to get his rightful promotion. This highlights the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure timely resolution of service-related disputes.

Conclusion

Dr. U.N. Pandey’s case is an inspiring example of perseverance in the face of injustice.

Despite decades of delay, his commitment to fighting for his rights ensured that justice was finally served. This case serves as a reminder to all employees facing similar issues that the legal system, though slow, can ultimately deliver fairness.

With this landmark ruling, the Patna High Court has reinforced the principles of meritocracy, transparency, and justice in career advancements.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTI2OTMjMjAwMCMxI04=-noK3zJ38XEQ=