2025:JHHC:27647 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S No. 4307 of 2025 ---- Bal Kishore Sahu, aged about 73 years, son of Late Rambrat Sahu, resident of Shambhu Enclave, Flat No.5/5, Near Lala Lajpat Roy Senior Secondary School, Lajpatnagar, Post and Police Station Pundag, District Ranchi. ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. 4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to SC II ---- 02 / 21.08.2025 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader from the post of Lecturer after counting the adhoc period for the purpose of promotion as the petitioner being appointed on 01.10.1982 as a Lecturer in Mathematics in Mandar College, Mandar under Ranchi University against the first sanctioned post but in spite of his representation the respondents have not acted upon for promotion of the petitioner. b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from Lecturer to the post of Reader after counting the adhoc period for the purpose of promotion in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. Vrs. Rincymol Mathew as the present petitioner also worked continuously right from 1982 as a Lecturer though the service has further been confirmed but no further promotion has been given to the petitioner and hence he is entitled to get her regular service counted for the period i.e. adhoc period for the purpose of grant of benefit of promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader and also in terms of the order passed in Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri Vrs. The Vice- Chancellor, Ranchi University and W.P.(S) No.3996 of 2018 dated 09.04.2025. 2025:JHHC:27647 -: 2 :- c) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion under the Statutes of time bound promotion after counting the adhoc period for promotion. d) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion counting the adhoc period i.e. the period 03.03.1983 till 08.05.1988 as a regular service only to the extent of grant of promotion under the Statute of time bound promotion for the post of Reader. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1982 as a Lecturer in Mathematics at Mandar College under Ranchi University through an open advertisement. His service was regularized from 03.03.1983. However, the university initially marked his absorption from 09.05.1992, which he objected to. Later, the date was corrected to 09.05.1988, with acceptance of his joining from 03.03.1983. He requested that his promotion to the post of Reader be considered from the date of his initial joining in 1983, including his adhoc service period from 1983 to 1988. Though his request for promotion was forwarded, no action has been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was appointed through a proper selection process and served more than one year in adhoc capacity, and had gained experience, this period should be counted for his promotion. He further submits that authorities should consider that earlier the petitioner was regularized in compliance of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.4021 of 1995 dated 31.01.1997. He further submits that According to the Gazette notification dated June 26, 2008, which is now part of the University’s official rules (specifically concerning the Career Advancement Scheme), Clause 10.2.0 clearly states that an ad-hoc period of service should be counted. Hence, petitioner is eligible for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of reader. 4. The learned counsel for opposite party placed his reliance on the time-bound promotion scheme, which was valid only until 23.09.1995. He further submits that since his service was officially recognized only from 09.05.1988 thus he had not completed 10 years by that cut-off date, thus the benefit could not be extended. He further submits that the date of absorption was determined after due verification of service records and in accordance with the relevant rules and administrative norms. He further submits that petitioner is not qualified for the promotion from the post of Lecturer to the 2025:JHHC:27647 -: 3 :- post of reader. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner’s claim for inclusion of his ad-hoc service period for the purpose of promotion under the time-bound promotion scheme is not supported by the applicable University Statutes, UGC norms, or the scheme guidelines. CAS Scheme in which an ad-hoc period of service should be counted has already come to an end. Furthermore, no legal right can be claimed merely on the basis of continuous ad-hoc service unless supported by statutory provisions. Admitted fact is that the petitioner, excluding the ad-hoc period, did not complete the requisite period of service. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, I find that since the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion and CAS Scheme is also not in existence, I find no merit in this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02