IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16674 of 2008 DR.BODH NARAIN JHA,SON OF VISHAMBHAR JHA, RESIDENT OF PROFESSOR COLONY, P.S. TOWN HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI--------PETITIONER . Versus 1. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE REGISTRAR, BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 4. DR. U.C. DAS, PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR ------- RESPONDENTS. . ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Kishore & S.K.Thakur,Advs. For Respondent No.4:- Mr. Subhash Chandra Jha,Advocate, For University:- Ajey Bihari Sinha,Advocate 5 28 .04.2010 Petitioner and the respondent no.4 Dr. U.C. Das are both working as University Professors under B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. Controversy arose, when under the signature of Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur notification bearing Memo no. B/1654 dated 28th September, 2008 was issued and respondent no.4 was appointed to the post of Head of the University in the Department of Chemistry, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur with effect from 2 1.10.2008. At the time of the issuance of notification, Respondent no.4 was posted and working in S.N.S. College, Motihari, from there he was transferred and posted as Head of Department of Chemistry. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of notification dated 28th September, 2008 contained in Memo No. B/1654 and for a declaration that petitioner being senior most University Professor is entitled to be appointed to the post of University Professor. The facts which are admitted are that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 20.1.1977. He was promoted to the post of Reader under ten years time bound promotion on 20.1.1987. Under sixteen years time bound promotion scheme, he was promoted as Professor on 20.1.1993. The date on which first research Scholar got Ph.D degree under him is 5.5.1992. On the other hand, respondent no.4 was appointed as Lecturer 3 on 17.4.1974, got promoted to the post of Reader under ten years time bound promotion on 1.2.1985 and promoted to the post of Professor under sixteen years’ time bound scheme on 12.12.1989. The first research Scholar, who got Ph.D under him, is in the year 1998. The only controversy relates to minimum qualification for promotion to the post of University Professor. The Rule 1(3) of the Statute for promotion of the Lecturers to the post of Readers and from the post of Readers to the post of University Professors, provides that a Reader possessing the qualification of University Professor must have sixteen years experience of continuous service as Lecturer/Reader in one and more Universities. Only such persons will be eligible for promotion to the post of University Professor, apart from other qualifications, the qualification provided under University Grant 4 commission Regulation, 199, that candidate should have “experience of guiding research at doctoral level”. The question is what should be understood by expression “experience of guiding research at doctoral level” used as minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Professors. Since, no where in the Statute or in the Guidelines of the University Grant Commission, it is clearly mentioned that what is the meaning of this expression. The petitioner is claiming seniority to the respondent no.4 only on this count that the Ph.D student registered under him, got his Ph.D degree prior to the date on which the student registered under the respondent no.4 for Ph.D got his degree. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this expression cannot be interpreted in any other manner, than the completion of the Ph.D degree. Minimum qualification in this regard cannot be attained only on account of 5 registration of the student of Ph.D degree, unless the research work of Ph.D degree of such students is published. The intervening period, from the date of registration till, publication of result cannot be counted as the requisite qualification. The law is settled in this regard, that the “ experience of guiding research scholar at the doctoral level” starts from the day any Ph.D student get registered, under any Reader and not on the day when the students submits his thesis and obtains Ph.D degree. The experience regarding guiding research at doctoral level, starts from the day of the registration of the Ph.D degree, it has got nothing to do with publication of result of Ph.D Degree of such students. 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 6 Professor and the same has got nothing to do after the student obtains Ph.D. Degree on passing the examination. Since experience starts from the day of registration, as such the day of registration is sufficient to fulfill the criteria given in the expression “experience of guiding research at doctoral level”. Respondent no.4 fulfilled this criteria earlier than the petitioner, as such being senior most professor in the department, he was promoted to the post of University Professor of Chemistry vide impugned notification. Respondent no.4 in his counter affidavit has stated that he was appointed as Lecturer in S.N.S. College, Motihari on ad hoc basis on 1.8.1970. Subsequently on recommendation made by the University Service Commission, Patna he was appointed to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry on regular basis, vide letter no. 253 dated 4.3.1974. He was promoted to the post of Reader in Chemistry with effect from 7 1.2.1985 on the notification issued by University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna and promoted to the post of University Professor of Chemistry with effect from 12.12.1989 under 16 years Time Bound Scheme. The University had issued a notification to this effect on 17.1.2000, subject to its confirmation by the University Service Commission. The University Service commission confirmed the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor with effect from 12.12.1989. Subsequently upon superannuation of Dr. R.S.Thakur, Professor and Head of the University Department of Chemistry, B.R.A. Bihar University, the respondent no.4 was transferred from S.N.S. College, Motihari to the University Department of Chemistry as Head of the Department of Chemistry, being the senior most teacher in the Department. Counsel appearing for the respondent 8 no.4 has submitted that it is true that University vide its memo No. B/456 dated 4.12.1999 had recommended to the Commission for promotion of respondent no.4 to the rank of University Professor with effect from 6.11.1993, but the Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna vide its’ memo no. B/456 dated 4.12.1999 recommended and approved promotion of respondent no.4 to the post of University Professor with effect from 12.12.1989. This was done in consonance of the order passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 2014 of 1997, where it was held that the University teachers are entitled to count the experience of guiding research at doctoral level from the date they have guided their respective students and not from the date such students obtained Ph.D. degree. The University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna recommended for the 9 promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date of registration of the first research scholar dated 12.12.1989. Counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, has submitted that respondent no.4 is senior to the petitioner, right from the date of his appointment and that is the reason that upon superannuation of Dr. R.S.Thakur, the respondent no.4 was made head of the Department of Chemistry in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(b) of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The grievance made by the petitioner has got no merit and it is fit to be dismissed. Counsel appearing for the University has also submitted that the respondent no.4 was made senior to the petitioner on the date the University (Constituent College) Service Commission; Patna had shifted the date of promotion of the respondent no.4 from 1993 to 1989. Since the petitioner did not challenge 10 the date of promotion of respondent no.4, at the relevant time, now he cannot be allowed to challenge the notification, whereby respondent no.4 has been made University Professor, on account of being senior most Professor in the department. On consideration of the entire facts and law, as well as the submissions made by the parties, I find that the petitioner cannot claim to be senior over the respondent no.4, who is senior to the petitioner in all respects. There is no illegality or error in the impugned notification, whereby the respondent no.4 has been made University professor of Chemistry Department of B.R.A.Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. The writ application stands dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar