THE STATE OF BIHAR ETC. versus DR. BRAJ KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE ST ATE OF BIHAR ETC. 
A 
11. 
DR. BRAJ KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
(S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India . 
• 
Articles 2261227-Practice and procedure-Court quashing order of 
promotion under longer time bound promotion scheme from later date and c 
directing promotion with effect from earlier date under shorter scheme-
Order challenged-Held, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, there 
was no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order-Service 
·Law-Promotion. 
Respondent No.I was selected by the Screening Committee under 16 D 
years time bound promotion scheme for promotion to the post of Professor in 
1990 with retrospective effect from 1.2.1985 and was promoted on provisional 
basis subject to approval of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) 
Services Commission. The Commission did not take any decision in the matter 
upto 6.4.1995 when it asked the University to constitute new Screening E 
Committee on the ground that the Screening Committee of 1990 was not 
properly constituted. Respondent No.I despite working as Professor in view 
of the provisional promotion applied again under both the 16 years and 25 
years time bound Promotion schemes but was selected only under the 25 years 
scheme and was promoted to the post of Professor vide notification dated 
4.10.1996. 
F 
Respondent No.I filed Writ Petition challenging the notification d11.ted 
4.10.1996 on the ground that he was eligible for promotion under the 16 years 
scheme Single Judge quashed the said notification and held the respondent 
No. 1 to have been promoted with effect from 1.2.1985 under the 16 years 
scheme. Appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Single Judge G 
was dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence these appeals. 
The appellants contended that the Single Judge after quashing the 
impugned order should not have promoted respondent No. 1 with effect from 
1.2.1985 and should have remitted the matter to the Commission for H 
333 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A consider.ation of the case of respondent No.I. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Respondent No.1 was found suitable for promotion by the 
Screening committee as well as by the Commission but his claim under 16 
B years scheme was rejected only on account of the additional criteria laid down 
by the Commission by its resolution in 1992 which was declared ultra vires 
and ultimately withdrawn. In the absence of the criteria there was no reason 
to withhold the promotion ofrespondent no. 1 with effect from the date when 
he became eligible. (338-G] 
• 
C 
2. Normally the Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 
of the Constitution oflndia, after quashing the impugned order should remand 
the matter to the concerned authority particularly when such authority consists 
of experts for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with the directions 
issued and the law laid down by it but in specified cases, as the instant case, 
. D nothing prevented the Court to issue directions when all the facts were 
admitted regarding the eligibility of respondent No.1 and his possessing the 
requisi!e qualifications. [338-G] 
E 
• F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6246 of 
1999. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.98 of the Patna High Court in 
L.P.A. No. 443of1997. 
P.S. Mishra, B.B. Singh, C. Shekhar, Ms. Ritu Singh, R.P. Singh, Ms. 
Sunita R. Singh, Vishnu Sharma, Anip Sachthey, A.L. Das, Ms. Sandhya 
Rajpal, Himanshu Shekhar, A. Sharan, Ms. Madho Sharan, S.P. Sinha and 
Anjani K. Jha for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
Finding him eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the 
time bound promotion scheme and being satisfied that the respondent No. I 
possessed the requisite qualification, the learned Single Judge of the High 
Court of Patna quashed the impugned notification dated 4.10.1996 and held 
the respondent No. I to have been promoted with effect from 1.2.1985 and 
H not with effect from 1.6.1992. The Letters Patent Appeals filed were dismissed 
ST A TE v. DR. B. K. MISHRA [SETHI, J.] 
335 
vide the impugned judgment in these appeals. The Appellants, the University A 
and the State of Bihar are mainly aggrieved by the findings of the High Court 
in so far as it, after quashing the order of the Registrar, declared the respondent 
No. I to have been promoted with e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.