Retrospective Appointment and Qualification Dispute: Patna High Court's Stand on University Lecturer's Case

 

The Patna High Court recently addressed a complex case involving Dharmeshwar Mishra, a lecturer at C.M. Law College in Darbhanga, and his entitlement to certain benefits based on his initial appointment date. The central issue in Civil Review No. 253 of 2019 revolved around whether Mishra was entitled to the benefits outlined in a letter dated June 29, 2005, concerning the appointment of part-time teachers in Bihar Universities. 

Background of the Case

Dharmeshwar Mishra's case involves a dispute over his appointment as a part-time lecturer at C.M. Law College, Darbhanga, and his eligibility for certain benefits. The core issue is whether Mishra is entitled to the benefits of a letter dated June 29, 2005, which pertains to the statutes for the appointment of part-time teachers in Bihar Universities.

The court examined Item No. 49 of the Manual of Bihar Universities Laws Part II, which outlines the statutes for appointing part-time teachers. These statutes specify that the minimum qualification and selection process for part-time teachers should be the same as for regular teachers. However, part-time teachers can be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of a selection committee for up to six months or until the end of the academic session, whichever is earlier, under exceptional circumstances.

 Key Dispute

The primary contention in this case is whether the review petitioner, Dharmeshwar Mishra, is entitled to the benefits of Letter No. BSU-8/2005-1614/GS(1), dated 29.06.2005. This letter contains statutes for the appointment of part-time teachers in Bihar Universities.

University's Argument

The university's stance is that Mishra's appointment as a Permanent Part-time Lecturer occurred after the University Grant Commission Regulations of 1991 came into effect on September 19, 1991. The university argued that Mishra was required to fulfill the educational qualifications for the post of Lecturer as per these regulations.

Petitioner's Claim

Mishra's case hinges on the fact that he was initially appointed on November 14, 1989, which is prior to the implementation of the UGC Regulations of 1991. His appointment was on a prescribed scale of Rs. 700/- per month, subject to the concurrence of the Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna, and was notified on February 19, 1992. The key point of contention is whether Mishra is entitled to a relaxation of the educational qualifications under the 1991 regulations, given his initial appointment date.

Court's Analysis

The Patna High Court, in its review, focused on the second proviso to Regulation No. 2 of the Regulations, 1991, which pertains to the relaxation of educational qualifications. The court noted that Mishra's appointment as a Permanent Part-time Lecturer at C.M. Law College, Darbhanga, was on November 14, 1989, prior to the UGC Regulations, 1991. The court also considered the concurrence of the Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna, which was given on May 28, 1998.

A significant point of contention was the issuance of another notification on July 30, 1998, by the University, which appointed Mishra as a part-time lecturer in Law on a fixed salary of Rs. 2200/- per month. The court noted that this fresh appointment order was issued without reference to the earlier notification dated February 19, 1992, and had retrospective effect from November 14, 1989. The court emphasized that the earlier notification had not been withdrawn, canceled, or modified by the competent authority.

Court's Decision

The Patna High Court found an apparent error on the record in not acknowledging the notification dated February 19, 1992, which had appointed Mishra as a permanent part-time lecturer with retrospective effect from November 14, 1989. The court concluded that Mishra's grievance needed to be addressed with reference to the second proviso of Regulation No. 2 of the Regulations, 1991, and the respondents could not insist that he fulfill the qualification requirements of Regulation No. 2 to deny him the benefits of the letter dated June 29, 2005.

The court allowed the Civil Review petition, recalled the order dated June 20, 2019, and restored Letters Patent Appeal No. 616 of 2018. The Registrar was directed to relist the Letters Patent Appeal before the Roster Bench in the second week of February 2024.

Implications

This judgment highlights the importance of recognizing prior service and the complexities that arise when retrospective appointments and subsequent notifications are issued. It also underscores the court's willingness to correct errors to ensure that employees are not unfairly deprived of their rightful benefits.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTEjMjUzIzIwMTkjMSNO-txxRr--am1--ZnUVQ=