Experience Of Guiding Doctoral Research Sufficient For Promotion Of Lecturer, Conferment Of PhD Degree On Research Student Not Necessary: Jharkhand HC

Briefly, the facts of the case are that a writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.) to recommend and grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor under Time Bound Promotion Scheme as recommended by the Vinoba Bhave University (University).

The case of the petitioner was that as per the statute for time bound promotion of teachers under the Bihar Universities Act, a teacher was entitled to be promoted after 16 years of continuous service to the post of professor as a time bound promotion, subject to concurrence of the University Service Commission. It was further submitted that the writ petitioner and many other teachers under Ranchi University had qualified themselves on the post of continuous teaching after their substantive appointments for 16 years under the University.

The matter of promotion of the writ petitioner was hanging since 1997 and after a long delay, University sent all the papers of the writ petitioner to J.P.S.C. in 2005. An objection was taken by the J.P.S.C. that since two recommendations were forwarded by the University, no action was taken. Consequently, the University clarified that the subsequent recommendation was superfluous and J.P.S.C. could act on the basis of recommendation dated sent in 2005. The claim of the petitioner was rejected in 2007 on the ground that there were two recommendations. Other ground for rejection was that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria on the cut-off date.

The crux of the argument of J.P.S.C. is that the writ petitioner was not duly qualified on the cut-off date in 1995, as the student who was being guided for research by the writ petitioner was enrolled in 1987. The Ph.D. work was to be completed within a period of 4 years with a further extension of 2 years' time. The entire period expired in the year 1992 and subsequently, the student got re-registered in 1996.

The final order of the writ court was under review through this petition. In the final order, the writ court held that the purported reason given by J.P.S.C. that the writ petitioner was not eligible on the cut-off date was wholly unsustainable. The writ Court was of the view that experience of guiding research at the doctoral level was enough and it was not necessary that the research scholar is awarded Ph.D. degree.

The court relied upon the judgement of Dr. Kalpnath Singh and Ors. Vs. the Bihar State to reject the arguments of J.P.S.C. In this case, the petitioners had challenged the notification by which the effective date for grant of time bound promotion as University Professor was altered to their detriment. Here, the only point for consideration was with regard to their experience of guiding research at doctoral level. In this case, the court recorded the date of registration of research scholars under the petitioners as well as date of publication of the research paper by the research scholars and examined the relevant provisions with respect to the experience of guiding research at doctoral level and was of the view that the regulations clearly provided that the Ph.D. students under the guidance of a teacher becomes student from the date of registration and guiding research at doctoral level starts from the date of registration of the students for Ph. D. degree which has nothing to do with the publication of result of Ph. D. degree of such student. It was also held that it is the experience during the intervening guiding period at the doctoral level which is the requirement to count experience of a reader for promotion to the post of University Professor and the same has nothing to do with the date the student obtains Ph. D. Degree on passing the examination.

Relying on this judgement, the court in the present case held that–

"In another words, it has nowhere been mentioned that the date of registration is sufficient to fulfil the criteria given in expression "experience of guiding research at doctoral level". In my opinion, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that a teacher got the sufficient experience of guiding research at doctoral level on the very date a student is registered under him. The registration of a student under a teacher is a procedural phenomena and a teacher starts guiding a student on or after the date of registration…So while recommending for promotion, the date of registration should not be mechanically taken as a cut date for promotion. The screening committee of the University should examine the eligibility, suitability and fitness of a teacher on the basis of gained experience of guiding research during length of time supported by actual research work done by the student, and publication of standard research papers and other materials which may really be considered as contribution to the knowledge. This may or may not be up to award of Ph.D. Degree but there must be consideration work done during the considerable span of time towards achieving the goal under the same guide."

The court found that in the present case, the writ petitioner had the required "experience of guiding research at doctoral level" as on the cut-off date though the concerned research student did not complete and received Ph.D. degree within the stipulated time frame. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petitioner was in possession of requisite qualification for time bound promotion with regards to experience of guiding research at doctorate level.

Thus, no merit was found in the review petition filed by JPSC, which was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title : Jharkhand Public Service Commission v Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry and anrs 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 59

Click Here To Read/Download Order