University has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(1)(14) over staff absorption during college takeovers, requiring no prior State approval.

The petitioners were employees of Karam Chand Bhagat (K.C.B.) College, Bero, appointed between 1983 and 1986

In 1986, the State of Bihar decided to take over the college as a constituent unit

Following a report by the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission (accepted by the Supreme Court in 2005), the Ranchi University issued notifications in 2005 and 2007 absorbing the petitioners’ services

Despite the University recommending the petitioners for pay revision in 2010, the State Government rejected their claims for 5th and 6th pay revision benefits via a reasoned order dated 11.06.2024

The State argued that the number of absorbed employees exceeded the sanctioned posts and that the petitioners had not approached the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission

1. Whether the State Government can reject pay revision benefits to absorbed employees on the ground that the number of appointments exceeded sanctioned posts when the University exercised its sole discretion under Section 4(1)(14) of the Jharkhand State University Act

2. Whether the lack of "prior approval" from the State for post creation acts as an impediment to the absorption of staff during a college takeover

Section 4(1)(14) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 (formerly the Bihar State University Act, 1976), which grants universities exclusive jurisdiction over the absorption of staff during the takeover of affiliated colleges

The Supreme Court precedent in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (2005) 9 SCC 129 established that the university’s power to absorb staff is independent of the requirement for prior State approval under Section 35

In State of Jharkhand v. Surendra Prasad Sahu, 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 331, it was reinforced that the State cannot examine the validity of such appointments once the University has exercised its discretionary power of absorption

Factually, the court noted that while the State claimed only 87 posts were sanctioned, a combined reading of the Agarwal Commission report and Notification No. 717 showed a total of 118 sanctioned posts, covering the petitioners

Legally, the court held that under Section 4(1)(14), the University has "sole discretion" regarding absorption

Citing Mahasangh, the court reasoned that the absence of prior sanction under Section 35 is not a constraint on the University's power to permit absorption, and the State had actually granted ex post facto approval by sanctioning posts retrospectively from the date of the takeover

Regarding the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, the court clarified that since the petitioners' services were already absorbed by the University, there was no legal necessity for them to approach a secondary commission to verify their status

The court directed the respondents to grant the benefits of the 5th, 6th, and 7th pay scales and to refix pensionary benefits accordingly within ten weeks