IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8559 of 2006 Prof. (Dr.) Janardan Prasad Singh, Son of Late Govind Singh, Resident of Pirbaba Road, Arrah, P.S. Arrah Nawada, District Bhojpur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Veer Kuer Singh University, Arrah, though its Registrar having office near Japanese Farm, P.S. Arrah Nawada, Distt. Bhojpur. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kuer Singh University, Arrah. 5. The Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna. 6. Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Son of name not known to the petitioner, a resident of Harijee Ka Hata, P.S. Arra Nawada, District Bhojpur. 7. Dr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, a resident of Maharana Pratap Nagar, P.S. Arra Nawada, District Bhojpur. 8. Dr. Krishan Mohan Singh, son of not known to the petitioner through Registrar, Veer Kuer Singh University, Arrah, P.S. Arrah Nawada, District Bhojpur. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 25.08.2010 Having heard Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account that the petitioner as per his declaration in the affidavit of having attained 60 years of age on 20.7.2006, this Court must hold that this writ application after superannuation of the petitioner from service as with regard to his following prayer:- “1(a) To quash the order No. V.K.S.U. 14/2004-GS dated 2.2.2005 passed by the Respondent Chancellor and consequently to quash 2 Universities Notification bearing Memo No. R 313/05 GI dated 8.2.2005 as well as the recommendation of the Screening Committee for promotion of the petitioner of the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 to the post of University Professor effective from date of simply completing 16 years of services as lecturer. (b) Alternatively to direct the Respondents to shift the petitioner’s promotion effective on completion of 16 years service as a lecturer on and from 1.9.1986 in stead of date of publication of result of Ph.D. examination of first scholar under the petitioner or in any case on and from 1.6.86 when the first scholar was registered under petitioner. (c) To declare the petitioner senior to Respondent No.6 to 8 as lecturer, Reader and University Professor. (d) To restrain the respondents particularly the Respondent commission from considering the promotion of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on the basis of recommendation of an illegally constituted Screening Committee applying a wrong provision of law which is under teeth of another order of the Chancellor dated 14.1.2005 which ordains promotion as 3 University Professor from the date of publication of result of Ph.D. examination of a research scholar under the person/teacher concerned. (e) To grant any other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled to as well as cost of this proceeding.” can no longer be pressed by him as he will be deemed to have been left no interest in the matter of promotion granted to the respondent no.6 to 8, inasmuch as, his no rights are now going to be affected in any manner on account of the order of promotion of respondent nos. 6 to 8. Additionally, this Court also must hold that the order of the Hon’ble Chancellor dated 14.1.2005 as with regard to the true interpretation and meaning of teaching and research experience in terms of U.G.C. Regulations 1991 for promotion on the post of Professor also does not suffer from any error and in fact it has been correctly held by him that:- “------So, on the basis of discussions made above, I hold that the expression “experience of guiding research at doctoral level” cannot be interpreted as the date of registration of the students for Ph.D. Degree under a 4 teacher and also it cannot be said that on the date of registration a teacher acquires sufficient experience of guiding research at doctoral level and fulfils the qualification as laid down in the U.G.C. Regulation for promotion to the post of University Professor. The expression “experience of guiding research at doctoral level” means the experience acquired by a teacher or guide during the intervening period i.e. from the date of registration up to the conclusion of the research. So while recommending for promotion the date of registration should not be mechanically taken as a cut date for promotion. The screening committee of the University should examine the eligibility, suitability and fitness of a teacher on the basis of gained experience of guiding research during length of time supported by actual research work done by the student and publication of standard research papers and other material which may really be considered as contribution to the knowledge. This may or may not be upto award of Ph.D. Degree but there must be considerable work done during a considerable span of time towards achieving the goal under the same guide.” In that view of the matter, though the petitioner has no case as against the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, specially when such 5 interpretation has been upheld by this Court in the case of teachers of Patna University, in any event the issue now, so far it relates to the petitioner, has become academic. Nonetheless, the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner will not mean that this Court has approved the promotion of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 and therefore, if any other person so aggrieved by such promotion of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 would assail the same, this order will not stand in his way. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)