2026:JHHC:10157 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6792 of 2023 Ravi Shanker Roy, Aged about 64 years, son of late Chandra Narayan Roy, Resident of Flat No. 1-D, Shyamkunj Apartment, Opposite Office of Indian Statistical Institute, New Barganda, P.O. Barganda, P.S. Giridih, District-Giridih. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1 State of Jharkhand. 2. Higher & Technical Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary/Secretary having office at Nepal House, PO & P.S. Doranda. District-Ranchi. 3. Director, Higher Education, Higher Education Directorate, Higher and Technical Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. 4.Vinoba Bhave University through its Registrar having office at Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. 5. Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, having office at Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. 6. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, having office at Hazaribag, P. O. & PS. Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to SC-II Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Riya Raj, Advocate -------- Order No. 14 /Dated: 9th April 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 435 dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure-13) being issued by the Higher Education Directorate, Higher and Technical Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand under the signature of Director Higher Education (Respondent No.3) whereby the pay fixation proposal of the petitioner has been rejected. AND (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent to approve the pay fixation proposal of the petitioner in the 5th, 6th and 7th revised pay-scale with effect from 01.01.1996 and 2026:JHHC:10157 2 01.01.2006 respectively and accordingly the consequential monetary benefits be released and paid to the petitioner immediately and forthwith upto date interest. AND/OR (iii) For further issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry on 08.10.1985 in Adarsh College, Rajdhanwar, Giridih. The said college was converted into a constituent college with effect from 20.10.1986. A letter dated 22.02.1987 was issued by Ranchi University for releasing the funds to the newly converted constituent colleges against sanctioned and recommended post upto 30.04.1986. The post of lecturer in the subject of Chemistry on second post was sanctioned by the Department of Education, Government of Bihar and a Notification No. 38/C to this effect was issued on 01.02.1988. A review of order dated 01.02.1988 was made by the State Government and a committee comprising eight members submitted a report and the second list was issued on 24.02.1990 wherein the name of the petitioner appears as Lecturer of Chemistry at serial -1. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Notification dated 16.09.2005 was issued by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh absorbing the services of the petitioner as well as other five lecturers appointed along with the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner raised his grievance before the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission with regard to his date of absorption. The said claim was dismissed by order dated 04.09.2014. The Principal, Aadarsh College, Rajdhanwar, Giridih along with letter dated 01.03.2021 sent the details of the status of the petitioner for approval of his absorption of pay fixation of 5th, 6th and 7th PRC with all arrears with effect from his date of absorption i.e. 01.02.1988. The Vinoba Bhave University thereafter forwarded the aforesaid provisional pay fixation statement of the petitioner and the other lecturers to the Director, Higher Education Government of Jharkhand for approval. The covering letter of the University referred to absorption of the 2026:JHHC:10157 3 services of the said lecturers in light of the order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997. The petitioner made detailed representation dated 02.02.2023 before the Director, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Thereafter, an order contained in Memo No. 435 dated 21.02.2023 was issued under the signature of Director, Higher Education, the Higher Education Directorate, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6882 of 2017, and the pay fixation proposal of the petitioner was rejected for lack of created and vacant post. Hence this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered in the case of “State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh”1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “53. We do not consider it necessary to express any final opinion as to whether the provision of 'prior approval' contained in section 35 for creation of posts and appointments in affiliated college is mandatory or directory. For the purpose of this batch of cases, it is sufficient for us to opine that clause 14 of section 4(1) operates in exclusive field of considering and taking decision on absorption of staff appointed regularly or otherwise in an institution including an affiliated or non- affiliated college which is to be taken over as 'constituent college' under a formal agreement reached between the university and the Governing Body of that college. In the process of taking over of management, assets, liabilities and staff of the affiliated or nonaffiliated college, the university has to take a decision with regard to absorption of existing staff. In this process of consideration for absorption, it may have regard to the provisions of the Act including observance of the provisions of section 35 of the Act. In the matter of absorbing staff of colleges taken over, any alleged non- observance of alleged mandatory provision of obtaining prior approval under section 35, before creation of posts and appointments to them, would not be an impediment in the way of university to permit absorption of an employee working against a post. It may for the above purpose seek ex-post facto approval of the State Government. The decision of the government contained in its communication dated 8 18.12.1989 itself allows consideration of absorption of the members of the staff working against post for which sanction for creation of posts was pending with the State Government on recommendations of the university. We do not find any conflict in the provisions of section 4(1)(14) and section 35, although each contains a non- obstante clause. They intend to override each other in field exclusively assigned to each. Appointments in affiliated college in normal circumstances has to be with prior approval of State Government in accordance with section 35 but subject matter of absorption of services of staff taken over shall be within exclusive jurisdiction of the university concerned in accordance with Section 4(1)(14) of the Act. 54. The two non-obstante clauses with slightly different wordings have thus to be harmoniously construed so as to fulfil the object of each one of them. On examination of the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions, we find that Section 35, requiring prior sanction of the State Government for creation of posts and appointments, applies to all affiliated colleges. Compared with Section 35 - 1 (2005) 9 SCC 129 2026:JHHC:10157 4 Section 4(1)(14) has limited operation at a stage when university enters into an agreement with the management or governing bodies of private institutions affiliated or non-affiliated for taking over its management, assets, liabilities and staff. The effect of non-obstante clause in Section 4(1)(14) is that the matter of absorption of staff of such institution/college proposed to be taken over, would be within the sole power and jurisdiction of the university concerned within whose jurisdiction the affiliated college or institution falls. On matter of absorption of staff of taken over institutions, Section 35 requiring prior sanction or approval of the State Government for creation of posts and appointment, would not be a constraint on the power of the university. It is a different thing that the university in considering absorption of the staff of institution taken over may give due consideration to the legality/regularity or otherwise of a particular appointment but it would not be inhibited by the absence of prior sanction or approval of the State as contemplated in section 35 of the Act. This is how the two non-obstante clauses have to be harmoniously construed and applied as giving overriding effect to each and restrict their operation within exclusive field assigned to each. In the matter of creation of posts and appointments in affiliated colleges in normal circumstances, requirement of prior sanction or approval of the State Government, as contained in Section 35, is not dispensed with because of the contrary provision contained in section 4(1)(14) and the latter Section is restricted in its operation to absorption of staff of a taken over institution by the university.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order (Annexure-13) it appears that the concerned respondent has misunderstood the claim of the petitioner made before the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission. As a matter of fact, the grievance of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha Commission was given in the second paragraph which is quoted herein below: “The grievance of claimant is that although his name appeared in both Annexure-IIIA & Annexure-IVA of the report of Hon’ble Justice Agrawal, Commission and he had been working against the sanctioned post w.e.f. 16.09.2005 having joined the said college on or about 08.10.1985 but despite the said fact he had been directed to be absorbed not w.e.f. the said date but only from 01.02.1988 that is from the date when his name was included in the Government Letter No. 38(C) dated 01.02.1988”. 6. From bare perusal of the 1st part of the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha Commission it appears that the sole grievance raised by the petitioner before the said Commission was with regard to change of date i.e. from 01.02.1988 to 08.10.1985. There was no dispute with regards to the absorption of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission has given a finding in the subsequent paragraph and for brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “It is not in dispute that the claimant had been holding the post of Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry and the said post was sanctioned in terms of Government Letter No.38(C) dated 30 January 1988 and the claimant was appointed on the next date that is 01.02.1988.” 2026:JHHC:10157 5 7. Thus, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that the claim of absorption itself has been denied by the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission. The Commission has only rejected the claim of the petitioner to change his date of absorption from 01.02.1988 to 08.10.1985. 8. After going through the impugned order, it is evident that the finding of Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission has been recorded; however; the preceding paragraph of the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission has been omitted in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the claim of the claimant was not mentioned in the impugned order. As aforesaid, the claim of the petitioner was only with regard to change of date from 01.02.1988 to 08.10.1985 but the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission after going through the order and also the Government Letter No. 38(C) dated 30.01.1988, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 9. As a matter of fact, the concerned respondent has misdirected himself in rejecting the claim of the petitioner with respect to 5th, 6th, 7th Pay Revision. Admittedly, the petitioner has been paid 4th PRC. Further, the petitioner has fairly admitted before this Court that he is satisfied with the date of absorption as on 01.02.1988 and not 08.10.1985. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the reasoning given in the impugned order is perverse, inasmuch as, there is a factual error. It is also relevant to refer Annexure-6 to the writ application which is the University Notification which gives a list of teachers who have been absorbed wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.3. In the said Notification, the date of absorption of the petitioner has been indicated as 01.02.1988 though his initial joining was 08.10.1985 but since the University has absorbed him since 01.02.1988 this Court is not interfering with the said date of absorption. 11. However, in any case, State cannot take a summersault only by reading and analyzing that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission. As stated hereinabove, the claim before the Hon’ble Justice S. B. Sinha, Commission was entirely 2026:JHHC:10157 6 different; that was with respect to date of absorption and now since the petitioner has already admitted that he does not have grievance with the date of absorption being 01.02.1988; further, in view of Annexure-6 which is the absorption letter of the petitioner, the claim made before this Court for 5th, 6th and 7th PRC is held to be justified. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 21.02.2023, is hereby, quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled and shall be paid 5th, 6th and 7th PRC and the consequential benefit, if not paid. 13. The Respondent-State is directed to pass an order upon the recommendation sent by the University and release the fund to the University. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Thereafter, the University shall pay the monetary benefit to the petitioner within a further period of 4 weeks. 14. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 9th April 2026 Amit Uploaded on 13/05/2026