IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11996 of 2010 1. DR. MALA VERMA W/O LALLAN PRASAD VERMA RETIRED LECTURER AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, M.R.M. COLLEGE, DARBHANGA Versus 1. L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR 4. DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR 5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 25.03.2011 Petitioner is a retired lecturer of Hindi. She was working in what is known as M R M College, Darbhanga. There is a long chain of litigation earlier with regard to her absorption under the University in a substantive capacity, which culminated into a notification dated 16.5.2005 issued by the Registrar of L N Mithila University (Annexure-1). This notification indicates that the petitioner was absorbed on a substantive basis with effect from 28.2.1982 on the post of lecturer in anticipation of approval of Syndicate. In the year 2008 petitioner superannuated. She came before this Court for settlement of her retiral dues. Now the present writ application has been filed seeking a direction upon the University authorities that under the time-bound scheme of promotion, she had a right to be promoted to the post of a reader. She filed an application before the Vice Chancellor of the University on 22.9.2009 but no decision has been taken or at 2 least communicated to the petitioner, which forced her to approach the High Court in the present writ. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that there is a responsibility upon the respondent Vice Chancellor to take a decision on the claim either in her favour or against her but silence on the issue is not going to help the situation because it unnecessarily generates litigation and present case is one such example. Let the petitioner approach the Vice Chancellor afresh with her claim along with details of her service history, with a copy of this order at the earliest and the Vice Chancellor would be well advised to consider the claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time frame of three months form the date of filing of such an application. The outcome of such decision will be communicated to the petitioner within the above time frame. It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be in order, the consequence will flow or else the reason for rejection, if any, will be communicated in so many words. The writ application is disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)