IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

W. P (S) No. 3 1 5 3 of 2 0 2 1

Ramji Singh --------------- Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & others ------------ Respondents

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.3, 4&5

I, Kaushlendra Kumar son of Late Bengali Prasad Sinha,

at present posted as Registrar Vinoba Bhave University,

Hazaribag , District - Hazaribag, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state as follows:

 2

1. That I am presently posted as Registrar , Vinoba Bhave

University at Hazaribag, respondent no. 5 and duly

authorized by respondent no. 4 to file the affidavit on his

behalf.

2. That I am well acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the case.

3. That I have read the contents of the writ application

and have understood the same .

4. That it is stated and submitted that the contentions and

averments raised on behalf of the petitioner in the writ

petition under reply are hereby denied and disputed save and

except those which have specifically been admitted by the

answering respondent in the present counter affidavit .

5. That before giving paragraph wise reply to the

statements made in the writ petition, it will be

necessary to place some facts of the case before this

 3

Hon’ble Court for the just and proper decision of the

case.

6. That it is submitted that the petitioner’s letter of appointment

was issued on 01.10.1983 and petitioner joined the college

on 03.10.1983 and respondent no. 6 joined Markham

College of commerce on the same date i.e 03.10.1983

7. That after perusal of qualification it transpires that petitioner

secured 53.2% in M.Sc. and not qualified for the

appointment for the post of Lecturer in the year 1983 as per

1978 Statutes applicable at that time. He did not possess

high second class degree in M.Sc as required in M.Sc in as

per 1978 statutes.

8. That according to the judgment of S.C. Agarwal

Commission the seniority of teacher is also based upon the

marks of post graduate degree of candidate if the date of

joining is the same and in this case the date of joining of the

petitioner and respondent no. 6 are the same but petitioner

 4

obtained only 53.2 % in M.Sc. It has been observed in the

report of S.C Agarwal Commission in the following : “The

teacher who have been found eligible for consideration for

absorption have been placed in the list on the basis of their

seniority keeping in view their date of appointment as well

as the date on which they acquired the requisite

qualification, keeping in view clause 2(vi) of Resolution of

the Govt. of Bihar dated May 9, 1988 in respect of teachers

who were appointed on the same date and had also joined

duty on the same date and had also joined duty on the same

date the placement in the list for absorption has been made

on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the

examination for the post-graduate degree”

9. That after perusal of qualification of respondent no. 6 that he

secured 81.6% marks in M.Sc which was sufficient for the

qualification for lecturer as per 1978 Statutes.

 5

10. That after perusal of the documents submitted by

respondent no. 6 it is evident that the letter of concurrence

was accorded in his appointment by Bihar College service

Commission against the 1st sanctioned post.

11. That the respondent no. 6 was getting salary by the

Principal of Markham College of Commerce from the

University on sanctioned post while petitioner was getting

salary on recommended post.

12. That according to the Hon’ble Justice S.C Agarwal

Commission, the name of the petitioner was in sanctioned

post while name of respondent no. 6 was in recommended

post. (Annexure -2 of the writ petition).

13. That however, according to the judgment of Hon’ble

Justice S.C Agarwal Commission is:- “ In some of the

written objections, certain mistakes of names and

descriptions of employees in the report of Commission have

been pointed out. Such mistakes in the report of the

 6

commission may be brought by the affected employees to

the notice of the Universities concerned. It would be open to

the Universities, for the above limited purpose to undertake

enquiry and verification of the records to rectify and rely

upon the report of the Commission with the necessary

corrections only with regard to the names and descriptions of

the employees.”

On the basis of above observation the report from the

colleges was called for from all the colleges of the

University and Markham College of commerce submitted

the report through its Principal and subsequently the

university filed an affidavit before Hon’ble Justice S.C

Agarwal Commission in which petitioner was kept in serial

no. 54 in recommended post while respondent no. 6 was

kept in serial no. 11 in sectioned post.

14. That a three members committee was also constituted

by the University vide memo no. Est/2475/2021 dated

 7

02.12.2021 on the committee finally submitted the report

and recommended that notification no.VBU/Esstt/1392/

2009 dated 16.07.2009 which was kept in abeyance in which

the services of respondent no. 6 was absorbed on sanctioned

post prior to 30.04.1986.

Xerox copy of the enquiry report

dated 25.01.2021 is annexed and

marked Annexure-A to this C.A.

15. That the answering respondent further craves leave to

file a detailed counter affidavit / additional affidavit (s) as

when required.

16. That the deponent has read the statements made in

this affidavit and has understood the same.

17. That the statements contained in paragraph………

of this affidavit are true to my knowledge and those

made in paragraph ……………..of this affidavit are

derived from the relevant records of this case and rest

 8

of the paragraphs are by way of my humble submission

before this Hon’ble Court.

18. That the contents of this counter affidavit is

verified, sworn and signed on this the ………day of

June, 2023 at this Hon’ble Court, Ranchi.