IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2298 of 2006 SMT.VIDYA DEVI wife of Shri Shiva Narayan Sah resident of Mahabir Marg, P.O. + P. S. and District- Kishanganj…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Secretariat, Building Patna.-1. 3. The Secretary, Higher Education Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar Secretariat Building, Patna-1. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Secretariat Building, Patna-1. 5. B. N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, through its Registrar. 6. The Principal, Marwari College, P. O. + P. S. and District- Kishanganj. .. Respondents. ----------- 2. 28.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows;- “1. That this application is for quashing the pay fixation of the petitioner issued on 7.7.2000 (contained in Annexure-3) so far as it relates to the petitioner under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education on the basis of an imaginary date of joining and for a direction for fixing the salary on the basis of correct date of joining and promotion in the circumstances set forth below.” Mr. Hoda, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that the University had already made a notification giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of Reader on 18.4.2000 shifting her date of time bound promotion from 2 7.7.89 to 7.7.88 but when the salary fixation statement was prepared under the joint supervision of the University and the State her effective date of joining as Lecturer was mentioned as 1.1.1981 and consequential promotion on the Reader was mentioned as 1.1.1991. Mr. Hoda would submit that the State Government could not have done so because under the Bihar State Universities Act the power to give promotion is on the University subject to concurrence of Bihar State (Constituent College) Service Commission. This Court would find it difficult to decide the dispute specially when none of the respondents namely University or the State had filed their counter affidavit. Additionally, this Court is also conscious that the University was fixing the salary or giving promotion in contravention of the provision made in the statute. In fact, it was for those reasons and under the orders of this Court that a procedure was adopted for verification of salary statement of such teaching employee of the University. In that view of the matter, while this Court would not quash the impugned pay fixation statement as enclosed in Annexure- 3 to the writ petition but then it 3 would direct both the University and the State to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a fresh representation enclosing a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)