IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2870 of 2003 SHREE KANT SINGH "KUMKUM", son of late Nageshwar Singh, resident of village Bathua Buzurg, P.S. Musrigharari, District Samastipur, at present Reader in the Department of Psychology, Uma Pandey College, Pusa, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, through the Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 2. The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 3. The Secretary, Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna 4. Dr. Kripanath Mishra, father’s name not known, Reader and Head of the Department of Sociology, Uma Pandey College, Pusa, District Samastipur … Respondents. ----------- 3. 4.8.2010 Heard Mr. K.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “This writ application is being filed for quashing the letter no. 249/629 dated 2.8.2002 issued under the signature of the Secretary (respondent no.3) Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna by which the time bound promotion of the petitioner to the post of Reader from Lecturer with effect from 1.2.1985 has been shifted to 1.6.1989 and for commanding the respondents to grant time bound promotion as Professor to the 2 petitioner with effect from the year 1991 when he completed 25 years of service as a Lecturer and also to direct the respondents to give consequential benefits to the petitioner.” Mr. Mishra with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that once Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission had given its concurrence for time bound promotion to the petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader by its letter no. 324 dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure 10) with effect from 1.2.1985, its subsequent order dated 2.8.2002 shifting the date of such concurrence from 1.2.1985 to 1.6.1989 is absolutely illegal, especially when no reason has been disclosed for the same. In this context Mr. Mishra has invited attention of this Court towards the order of the University dated 25.9.1989 and its enclosure, the pay fixation statement issued by the University dated 16.9.1989 on the basis of which it has been contended that the petitioner’s first appointment on the post of Lecturer was made on 16.8.1966 in 3 G.M.R.D.College, Mohanpur, where he having continued for a period of almost four years had been again appointed in D.B.K.N.College, Narhan and having continued in the said College for almost six years he became the Lecturer in U.P.College, Pusa with effect from 21.1.1976 and therefore, the petitioner’s services having been absolutely continuous from 16.8.1966 when the University had also made pay fixation upto 16.8.1989 treating him to be continuous service, the petitioner would be entitled for counting the entire service from 16.8.1966 for the purposes of time bound promotion and in fact it was in the background of admitted facts of the case of the petitioner that the Commission had also rightly given earlier recommendation for time bound promotion with effect from 21.2.1985 and therefore its unilateral modification by shifting the date of promotion of the petitioner to 1.6.1989 to his detriment without any notice and/or opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained either on fact or in law. As noted above, neither the counsel 4 for the University is present nor any counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents but then from that very letter of the University relied by the counsel for the petitioner dated 25.9.1989 it becomes clear that the services of the petitioner prior to the year 1982 was that of a temporary teacher and in fact the services of the petitioner were regularized in view of the State Government letter No. 906 dated 16.7.1982. Such regularization in fact was only an off-shoot to the Chancellor’s statute dated 18.11.1980 wherein the provisions were made for regularizing services of the temporary teachers. Once this fact would, therefore, become clear that the petitioner’s services was also regularized on or after 1.7.1982, it would then definitely not entitle him to count previous service for the purposes of time bound promotion, inasmuch as the Statutes prescribing time bound promotion by the Chancellor clearly envisage working of a Lecturer against the vacant sanctioned post. The fact that the petitioner’s services were regularized with effect from 21.7.1982 would 5 not allow him to count his service for the earlier period at least for the purposes of its being taken into account for time bound promotion. This much this Court can say on the basis of reading of the Time Bound Promotion Statutes but then the petitioner has also not enclosed the order passed by the university regularizing his service nor the University has filed its counter affidavit and after the Commission has already been dissolved, it is now the University which he has to do the needful in the matter of fixing the date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Reader. Such fixation will have a crucial bearing on his future prospect because whatever date of promotion is assigned to the petitioner for the post of Reader would also govern the date of his next promotion on the post of Professor. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the authorities of the L.N.Mithila University to re-examine the case of the petitioner in the light of service history and statutes with regard to regularization of temporary Lecturers as 6 also time bound promotion and take a firm and final decision with regard to entitlement of the psetitioner for promotion on the post of Reader and Professor from due date. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed any final view on merit and therefore, it will be open for the University to pass its own order strictly in accordance with law. Such exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/