IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9316 of 2003 1. DR.BHARAT NARAIN son of late Sudama Prasad ojha, resident of village & Post Rampur Atauli, P.S. Ishapur, District Saran. 2. Pramod Prasad Sharma son of Sri Ambika Sharma, resident of village Bishwashpur, P.O. Chiraiyr, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. 3. Kumar Vireshwar Sinha son of late Mithileshwar Dutt, Sinha, resident of village Bansoohi, P.O. Kharwan, P.S. Basantpur, District Siwan. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Jaiprakash Narain University, Chapra. 4. The Registrar, Jaiprakash Narain University, Chapra. 5. The Secretary, Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. 6. Dr. S.M.R. Azam, son of Not known, University Professor, Jai Prakash Narain University, Chapra. ----------- 3 13.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioners as with regard to the following relief:- “That this writ application is directed against the arbitrary action of the Respondent authorities in granting an entirely ill conceived and pre-dated promotion to the Respondent no.6, Dr. S.M.R. Azam as University Professor of English by the J.P. University, Chapra, under the 16 year time bound promotion scheme on illegal and unreasonable grounds and in complete defiance of the statutory provisions, overwhelmingly superseding the claims of the petitioners, thereby adversely affecting the inter-se seniority framework of the teachers of the department.” and the sole attack being one of question of bias as raised in paragraph 19 of the writ application reading as follows:- “That however to the utter dismay of the petitioner‟s who were expecting follow up action in pursuance of their representation, the promotion of the Respondent no.6 was made to figure in the meeting of the Syndicate, of which the said Respondent no.6 himself was a member, as Item no.6 of the Agenda of the meeting dated 6.10.02 without any reference to the representation of the petitioner against it in the exhibit to the items.” 2 having been answered by respondent no. 6 in paragraph nos. 22,23,24 and 25 of the counter affidavit reading as follows:- “That the statement made in paragraphs 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are wrong and misleading in as much as neither the writ petitioners nor any one else had ever objected to the illegal and valid regularization of the services of Respondent no.6 since 31.01.1977 and hence the representations of the writ petitioners submitted in 2002-03 were clearly frivolous, baseless and even mischievious and hence no heed could have been legally paid to them by the statutory authorities. That it may also be stated that the answering Respondent no.6 was no doubt a member of Syndicate of the J.P. University but he did not participate in the agenda for promotions of the lecturers and Readers in the meeting of the syndicate dated 6.10.2002 in which there were several other agendas. However, the agenda for promotions was unanimously passed by the syndicate without any voting and the Vice Chancellor being the Chairman of the syndicate duly approved the same. That it may further be stated here that there are two modes of time bound promotion for the post of professors in the universities namely 16 years scheme and 25 years scheme. The petitioners are not eligible for promotions under the 16 years scheme as they do not possess the requisite qualification/ criteria fixed by the Statute as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 do not possess Ph.D Degree, whereas although petitioner no.1 has a Ph.D Degree but no one has got registration for doing Ph.D undr his supervision. Furthermore, none of the writ petitioners has got any published work, course writing, research guiding experience etc. which is essential for grant of such promotion. That so far the time bound promotion scheme of 25 years is concerned writ petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are not eligible for that also as the cut of date of that scheme is 23.9.1995 and they completed 25 years of their service on 14.6.1999 and 17.12.2000 respectively. Moreover even writ petitioner no.1 is not eligible for being promoted as no such recommendation in his favour has been received so fare from Bihar State University Service Commission which is mandatory. It may further be stated that the answering respondent no.6 had been legally promoted to the post of University Professor with effect from 3 31.01.1993, whereas writ petitioner no.1, even according to his own course, completed 25 years of service much thereafter on 10.09.1993.” would leave nothing else for this Court to hold that at least the question of bias as raised in the writ application does not get substantiated inasmuch as respondent no.6 has categorically denied to have participated in the meeting of the syndicate when the agenda for time bound promotion was taken up. The plea of bias against respondent no.6 also must fail in view of the fact that it was not solitary case of respondent no.6 which was placed before the syndicate rather a number of similar cases of time bound promotion were placed for approval before the syndicate which had unanimously resolved to approve the proposal for grant of time bound promotion to others including respondent no.6. The principles, therefore as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of „A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Vs. Union of Indian & Ors.’ reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 cannot be made applicable inasmuch as in that case selection was being made on the post of Indian Forest Officer was held to be bad because the person concerned was a candidate as also the member of the selection committee. In the present case, the proposal for grant of time bound promotion was already screened by the experts and thereafter with the approval of the Vice Chancellor the matter was placed for concurrence of the syndicate. Thus merely because the respondent no.6 was a member of syndicate that would not mean 4 that bias had come into play in grant of time bound promotion. Thus, the plea of bias as raised by the petitioners must fail. The submission of Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that respondent no.6 did not qualify for grant of time bound promotion and his appointment on the post of lecturer is unsustainable, has to be noted for its being rejected. According to the statutes of the Chancellor a large number of temporary teachers who had worked for more than 24 months continuously had been given such benefit. Such events had taken place in the year 1984, but the petitioners did not challenge such action in the next 19 years and therefore now at least appointment of respondent no.6 on the post of lecturer cannot be allowed to be reopened at the instance of the petitioner. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the time bound promotion of respondent no.6. This writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)