2025:JHHC:14150 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3860 of 2019 Dr. Subodh Kumar Singh (aged about 53 years), Son of Shee Dayal Singh residing at Kadma No. 2, P.O- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) ....Petitioner Versus 1. The Chancellor, Universities of Jharkhand at Rajbhawan, P.O. Rajbhawan, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi Jharkhand) 2. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University at Hazaribagh, P.O & P.S - Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) ....Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Adv. For the Respondents .-: Mrs. Indrani S. Choudhary, Adv. - 12/06.05.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: i) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to his promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Hindi on completion of 9 years of service as a Lecturer in the senior scale and also fulfilling his required qualifications and even his completion of Orientation/Refresher course within the prescribed approved duration provided under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) being introduced through the statute effective from 27.07.1998 published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary of dated 02.07.2008 since in spite of all criteria and the necessary requirements already being fulfilled by the petitioner and even participation in orientation course and refresher course of approved duration being approved by the University Grant Commission (UGC), the case of the petitioner could not be considered till date and the responding university is sitting tight over the genuine and legitimate grievances of the petitioner by not forwarding his case to Jharkhand Public Service Commission for seeking recommendation and due to the adopting of lethargic approach of the respondent university for delaying the matter of the petitioner without any cogent reason, the petitioner is encoring monitory loss from the period 03.03.2017 in violation of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India 2025:JHHC:14150 2 3. At the outset, the State Counsel submits that a counter affidavit has been filed in this case on 07.09.2021 by the respondent no. 2 indicating therein that the prayer of the petitioner shall be considered after notification of the new Regulation, 2018, which was not notified at that time; however, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the new regulation has been notified in the year 2022 with effect from 01.01.2009; as such, the case may be disposed of, so that the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed as per the applicable Rules/Regulation governing on the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fully supports the contention of the respondents that the new Regulation has already been given effect from 01.01.2009; as such, the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per applicable Regulation which is applicable on the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the fair submission of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the case of this petitioner as per the latest regulation which is applicable on the petitioner with regard to claim made in this writ application. The decision shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioner within a further period of 8 weeks. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk