{"id":268582,"date":"2010-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-25T03:08:14","modified_gmt":"2016-01-24T21:38:14","slug":"raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                              W.P. (S) No. 683 of 2004\n                                             ...\n              Raj Kishore Singh                                    ...      ...     Petitioner\n                                     -V e r s u s-\n              1. Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Vice Chanellor\n              2. Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.\n              3. Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh through its Vice Chancellor\n              4. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh\n              5. Principal, Jagannath Jain College, Koderma\n              6. Principal, Singhbhum College, West Singhbhum\n              7. Principal, G.L.A. College, Palamau                ...      Respondents.\n                                             ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                             ...\n              For the Petitioner             : - Mrs. Sheela Prasad, Advocate.\n              For the Ranchi University : - Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate.\n              For the Vinoba Bhave University : - Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate.\n                                             ...\n              C.A.V. On :- 11\/01\/2010                        Delivered On: - 15 \/01 \/2010\n                                                     ...\n4\/ 15. 01 .2010               Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n              2.             The reliefs claimed by the petitioner, in this writ application are: -\n                                              (i)     For a direction upon the Respondents to grant\n                                              him promotion with effect from 18.01.1989, i.e. the\n                                              date from which other persons junior to the petitioner\n                                              in the Gradation list, were granted such promotions.\n                                              (ii)    For a direction to the Respondents to revise the\n                                              pay-scale of the petitioner as per the recommendations\n                                              of the Pay Revision Committee and fix his pay in the\n                                              scale of Rs.1500-2750.\n                                              (iii)   To direct the Respondents to pay the petitioner\n                                              his full salary for the period 08.10.1991 to December,\n                                              1995 after deducting the amount, which has been paid\n                                              to him on the basis of the lower pay-scales.\n              3.             The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: -\n                             The petitioner was initially appointed on Class IV post as a Night\n              Guard under the Respondent No. 4 on 29.11.1976 and thereafter his services were\n              regularized on the said post.\n                             Though the petitioner was a matriculate and was appointed as a Night\n              Guard but the work of Clerk was also taken from him. The then Principal of the\n              Jagannath Jain College, Jhumritelaiya vide Notification dated-02.05.1987, granted\n              promotion to the petitioner from Class IV to Class III post as Lower Division Clerk.\n              Such promotion, which was granted to the petitioner along with nine other Class IV\n              employees was, however made subject to the approval of the University. Thus, from\n the date of his promotion, the petitioner has been working on the Class III post along\nwith his other colleagues. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded by the Principal\nto the Registrar of the Ranchi University for approving the promotion granted to the\npetitioner and to the other nine candidates.\n               In pursuance to the recommendation of the Principal, the Ranchi\nUniversity vide its Notification dated-18.01.1989 promoted five persons out of the\nten recommended candidates. The petitioner's name though being at Serial No. 1 of\nthe list of the recommended candidates, was excluded from the Notification.\n               The petitioner thereafter, submitted his protest by way of a\nrepresentation, claiming his promotion from the due date as granted to the others.\n               The Principal of the College forwarded a second list by recommending\nthe names of several candidates to the University for approval of their promotion and\nregularization of their services in Class III posts. Again the petitioner was denied\napproval of such promotion, whereas approval was granted to the other persons\nbelow the petitioner in the recommended list.\n4.             The petitioner informs that under such compelling circumstances, he\nhad filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2356 of 1992 (R). The writ application\nwas disposed of by this Court by order dated-19.08.1992 with a direction to the\nVice-chancellor of the University to consider the petitioner's grievance and dispose\nof the same by a reasoned order.\n               When despite the directions contained in the aforesaid order of this\nCourt, no compliance was made by the Respondents, a contempt application was\nfiled by the petitioner, numbered as M.J.C. No. 120 of 1993 (R). Upon the contempt\napplication being filed, a Notification dated-18.08.1993, was later issued by the\nRespondents promoting the petitioner to the post of Routine Clerk on the pay-scale\nof Rs.1200-1800\/- with other admissible allowances as per the Rules of the\nUniversity but made effective from 06.08.1993.\n               The petitioner's grievance is that the promotion ought to have been\ngiven to him with effect from 1989 when his other colleagues were granted such\npromotion. His further grievance is that after his transfer to Singhbhum College at\nChandil at West Singhbhum in 1981, he was never paid his salary on the ground that\nadequate funds were not available for payment of full salary.\n5.             Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents, as stated in the counter\naffidavit and explained by the learned counsel for the Respondents, is that when the\npetitioner had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2778 of 1994 (R) for\npayment of salary with effect from 08.10.1991 onwards, by order dated-05.05.1995,\nthis Court had declined to direct for payment of salary on the ground that the\npetitioner had not worked during the period, at least even till the date of disposal of\n the writ application and the petitioner had absented himself from duty up to\n31.12.1995<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> and hence he was not entitled to the salary for the period of his absence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                       As regards the petitioner&#8217;s demand for payment of the scale of<br \/>\nRs.1500-2750\/-, it is stated that such scale is not admissible to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                       Learned counsel for the Respondents explains that earlier, the<br \/>\npetitioner had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174<br \/>\nof 1999 (R) and while disposing of the writ application by order dated-07.06.2001,<br \/>\nthis Court had directed the Respondents-University to take a decision with regard to<br \/>\npay-fixation of the petitioner and the petitioner had undertook to abide by the<br \/>\ndecision of the Pay Fixation Committee. In compliance with the order of the Court,<br \/>\nthe Pay-Fixation Committee was constituted and at its meeting held on 04.09.2002, it<br \/>\nwas decided that the petitioner, who was granted promotion to the post of the<br \/>\nRoutine Clerk, was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540\/-. In accordance with the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee, the Respondent-University issued<br \/>\na Notification on 28.05.2002, fixing the pay of the petitioner in terms of the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                       Learned counsel further points out that after his retirement<br \/>\nfrom service, but prior to the date of recommendation of the Pay Fixation<br \/>\nCommittee, the petitioner filed yet another writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 944 of<br \/>\n2006. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-<br \/>\nUniversity to pay the petitioner the scale of Rs.1200-1800\/- in terms of the<br \/>\nappointment letter. Such payment was however made subject to the final decision in<br \/>\nthat regard by the Pay Fixation Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                       As regards the petitioner&#8217;s claim for promotion from the<br \/>\nretrospective date i.e. 18.01.1989, it is explained that the earlier promotion given by<br \/>\nthe Principal of the College was unauthorized and it was only provisional. The power<br \/>\nto grant promotion under the statute is vested only with the Vice-chancellor. The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s provisional promotion was also withdrawn and he was reverted to the<br \/>\npost of Night Guard on and from 30.08.1991. It is also explained that when the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s case was considered for his promotion, it was found that his performance<br \/>\nwas not satisfactory and further, that he was suspended during the period 18.12.1980<br \/>\nto 22.03.1987 by the College. Show-cause notices were issued to him from time to<br \/>\ntime against repeated acts of misconduct on his part and an enquiry was also<br \/>\nconducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer had found the charges against<br \/>\nthe petitioner, proved.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                       Learned counsel explains that when the candidature of the<br \/>\nother candidates was considered and promotion was granted to them with effect from<br \/>\n18.01.1989, the petitioner&#8217;s candidature was also considered and his performance in<br \/>\n duty having not been found satisfactory, he was not found fit for promotion at that<br \/>\ntime. It is further explained that subsequently when the petitioner&#8217;s case for<br \/>\npromotion was considered in the year 1992, the Respondents considering the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s educational qualifications and other factors\/criterias, had granted him<br \/>\npromotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the notified date of the<br \/>\nyear 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">                        Learned counsel submits further, that in the several writ<br \/>\napplications, which the petitioner had filed earlier, the petitioner had never raised<br \/>\nany issue regarding the grant of his promotion from the year 1993 and it is only after<br \/>\nabout ten years from the date of Notification for his promotion, that for the first time,<br \/>\nhe has filed this writ application containing the aforesaid prayer for promotion with<br \/>\neffect from the retrospective date. Learned counsel submits that the prayer of the<br \/>\npetitioner for grant of promotion with effect from 18.01.1989 is liable to be rejected<br \/>\non this ground alone.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">6.             As it appears from the rival submissions and the pleadings of the<br \/>\nparties, the petitioner&#8217;s case for his promotion was considered along with similarly<br \/>\nsituated other candidates in the year 1989. The petitioner was not found fit for<br \/>\npromotion on account of his unsatisfactory performance of service. It is not denied<br \/>\nby the petitioner that on the charges of several acts of misconduct, he was put under<br \/>\nsuspension and a departmental proceeding was also conducted against him. The<br \/>\npetitioner cannot claim that despite adverse remarks in respect of his performance of<br \/>\nduties, he was entitled to promotion as a matter of right from the date when the<br \/>\nothers were granted such promotions. It is not a case where the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\ncandidature for promotion was not considered at all at the time when the cases of<br \/>\nother candidates whose names were considered and recommended for promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">7.             As pointed out by the Respondents, the promotion, which was earlier<br \/>\ngranted, though provisionally, by the Principal of the College, was not valid in view<br \/>\nof the fact that the Principal of the College was not authorized under the statute to<br \/>\ngrant promotion to the Class IV employees to Class III posts. The approval to such<br \/>\nprovisional promotion having not been given by the University, the petitioner cannot<br \/>\nclaim any right or benefit on the ground that the Principal had granted him<br \/>\npromotion.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">8.             The petitioner&#8217;s claim for fixation of his salary on the scale of<br \/>\nRs.1500-2750\/- is also not tenable. This is because, admittedly, the petitioner was<br \/>\npromoted to the post of Routine Clerk, for which the requisite educational<br \/>\nqualification, was matriculation. Merely because the petitioner being designated as a<br \/>\nRoutine Clerk, he cannot equate himself with the regular Clerks for whose<br \/>\nappointment, the requisite qualification is Graduation. The scales, as per the<br \/>\n       recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee for Routine Clerks, has been fixed<br \/>\n      separately, whereas the scales at a higher rate have been separately fixed for the<br \/>\n      regular Clerks. The petitioner therefore, cannot claim the benefit of such higher<br \/>\n      scales as extended to the regular clerks.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">                            As appearing from the order passed in the earlier writ<br \/>\n      application, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174 of 1999 (R), the Respondent-University was<br \/>\n      directed to pay the scale of Rs.1200-1800\/- in terms of the appointment letter issued<br \/>\n      to the petitioner but such payment was made subject to the final decision of the Pay<br \/>\n      Fixation Committee. The petitioner had undertaken in the aforesaid writ application<br \/>\n      to abide by the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. The petitioner cannot,<br \/>\n      therefore, resile from his own undertaking from abiding with the decision of the Pay<br \/>\n      Fixation Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">      9.             As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, the<br \/>\n      petitioner had though filed several writ applications before this Court claiming one<br \/>\n      or the other reliefs, but despite the fact that against the Notification by which he was<br \/>\n      granted promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the year 1993, he<br \/>\n      had never raised any grievance against the date when such promotion was made<br \/>\n      effective, in any of the earlier writ applications. It also appears that such grievance<br \/>\n      has now been raised by the petitioner after more than ten years from the date of the<br \/>\n      Notification of his promotion. The petitioner, thus appears to have suffered lapses<br \/>\n      and latches on his own account.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">      10.            In the light of the above discussions, I find that the petitioner has not<br \/>\n      made out any grounds for grant of the reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly, this writ<br \/>\n      application is dismissed at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                                                                       (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<br \/>\nAPK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (S) No. 683 of 2004 &#8230; Raj Kishore Singh &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Vice Chanellor 2. Registrar, Ranchi University, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1240,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010"},"wordCount":1240,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010","name":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T21:38:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kishore-singh-vs-ranchi-university-th-its-v-c-on-15-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}