IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1914 of 2002 Dr. Shukla Singh, W/o Bijendra Singh, Reader-cum-Incharge Principal, Mahendra Mahila college, Gopalganj, P.S.+ District Gopalganj. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Under Secretary to the Government, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Officer (University) Government Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commissiion, Gokul Marg, North Sri Krishnapuri, Boring Road, Patna-13 through its Secretary. 5. The Jay Prakash University, Chhapra, District Chhapra through its Registrar. 6. The B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur through its Registrar. 7. The Vice-Chancellor, Jay Prakash University, Chhapra, District Chhapra. 8. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R. Abmedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. 9. The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chhapra, District Chhapra. 10. The Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 27.08.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also taking into account that the following relief of the petitioner prayed in this writ application:- “1. That this is an application through which the petitioner crave indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction (s) to quash the notification as contained Memo No. 2693 dated 19th September, 1991 issued under signature of Registrar, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur [(now B.R. 2 Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur) (Respondent No.10)] and further to quash the notification as contained in Memo No. 3377 dated 20th October, 1997 issued under signature of Registrar B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (Respondent no.10) and further to quash the notification as contained in Memo No. 1/Est.-4/P- 1/Uni.Edu.24 chhapra dated 12th January, 1998 issued under signature of Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chhapra (Respondent No.9) whereby and whereunder the date of merit promotion of the petitioner on the post of Reader has been shifted/revised from 14th December, 1987 to 1st June, 1989 and further the respondents be directed to restore the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Reader w.e.f. 14th December, 1987 and further to direct and command the respondents to give all benefits of promotional post to the petitioner w.e.f. 14th December, 1987, and further to grant any other consequential relief(s) for which petitioner may be found entitled to.” is not only belated by a period of 4 to 11 years but also that the main order, on the basis of which these impugned orders came to 3 be issued, has not been assailed, this Court would find it difficult to allow the prayer of the petitioner made in this writ application. The issue, infact, in this writ application is very simple, inasmuch as, all that the petitioner wants is that her date of promotion of Reader should be 14.12.1987 which has been notified by the University by the impugned order as 1.6.1989. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that such change, being contrary to the earlier order of the University as contained in Annexure-8 without show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing, was bad and therefore, the delay should not come in the way of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, reliance placed by the petitioner on Annexure-8 itself is incorrect, inasmuch as, Annexure-8 is only an order of ad- hoc/temporary promotion which was given by the University in anticipation of the approval/concurrence of Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service 4 Commission. It is undisputed fact that under Section 57 or the Statute framed for merit promotion from the post of Lecturer to the Reader, no promotion can be given unless it has a prior concurrence of the Commission. The only power given to the Vice Chancellor or the University is limited to a period of six months or the end of the session, whichever is earlier and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Annexure-8 by itself did not confer any right on the petitioner, much less, to claim for the date of promotion. When this aspect becomes clear, it would not be difficult for this Court to find out that the University, later on, by the impugned orders, has only re-notified the date of promotion of the petitioner as per the concurrence/recommended by the Commission. Here comes the question of delay. Had the petitioner moved this Court at an appropriate time in the year 1991, the erstwhile University, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, which had actually dealt and decided the case of the petitioner for merit 5 promotion, could have produced the relevant records. Today, after the Commission has been abolished and B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University has also lost control over the college of the petitioner, it would be difficult for this Court to direct the respondents to produce, infact, to show the justifiability of promotion of the petitioner from 1.6.1989. Thus, when the petitioner also has not been able to establish any good reason as to why she should be given her promotion under merit promotion statutes with effect from 14.12.1987 and her only reliance on the case of Smt. Bina Prasad of the History Department of B.R. Ambedkar University is also incapable of being answered by the present respondent, the controlling university of the University of the petitioner, Jai Prakash University and in any case not binding on J.P. University, this writ application must fail both on account of delay and laches as also on merit. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)