IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9201 of 2007 Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Late Rajeshwari Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Gaurakshni, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas and working as a Lecturer, Department of English, S.P.Jain College, Sasaram Under V.K.S. University, Ara. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary (Higher Education), Patna. 2. Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara through its Registrar. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 4. The Bihar State University Service (Constituent College) Commission, Patna through its Chairman. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 15.09.2010 In the opinion of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, reading as follows:- “1(a) To take decision on the petitioner’s pending application, dated 3.2.99, for promotion on the post of “Reader” and another application, dated 31.1.2003 for promotion on the post of “Professor” immediately within a time frames of three months and six months respectively. Further direction to pay cost and compensation.” has to be considered, in the first instance, by the respondent nos. 2 & 3, inasmuch as, the college, in question, in which the 2 petitioner is working, is a constituent college of fourth phase where in the finality for absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees has been arrived at recently in view of the judgment of the Apex Court approving the report of Justice S.C. Agarwala Commission. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to consider the claim of promotion of the petitioner only if the name of the petitioner finds place in the R-1 category of Justice S.C. Agarwala Report. In the event, the service of the petitioner has already been absorbed after taking into account the report of Justice S.C. Agarwala Commission, the University will be under obligation to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner. Such exercise in the case of the petitioner must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be noted that in absence of counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, this Court has simply remitted 3 the matter back to the Vice Chancellor and therefore, if the claim of the petitioner for promotion or part thereof is rejected, the order of the University must contain reasons for the same. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)