IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7172 of 2007 RAN BIJAY NARAYAN SINHA, s/o Late Alakh Narain Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Prof. Colony, Gali No.-09 Tajpur Road, District- Samastipur (Bihar). ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITy Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University Kameshwar, Nagar, Darbhanga, Bihar. 3. The Registrar, L. N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Bihar. 4. The Dean of Social Science, L. N. Mithila University, Kameshwar nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The H. O. D. of Psychology, L. N. Mithila University Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. .... Respondents. ----------- 5. 22.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the L. N. Mithila University as with regard to the following relief;- “1. That this is an application for issuance of writ of a writ of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to consider and give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Reader under Merit Promotion Statue from the due date of Promotion i. e. w.e.f. 28.01.1991 and also give the consequential benefits.” there can be no dispute on the proposition of law that if an incumbent during the course of service is entitled to be considered for promotion under more than one scheme or policy, the employer cannot deny such benefit on the ground that it had chosen to consider him/ her under 2 only one policy. To be more specific, the petitioner by virtue of being a teaching personnel of the University was entitled for being considered for promotion both under Merit Promotion Statute and under Time bound Statute. As a matter of fact, he became entitled for being considered for promotion under the merit promotion scheme w.e.f. 28.1.1991 and it is also beyond dispute that an application was also filed by him for this purpose which was received in the Headquarters of the University on 11.2.1991. It however appears that for some reason or other the case of the petitioner for promotion under Merit Promotion Statute was never considered and subsequently the petitioner having qualified for promotion under Time Bound Statute w.e.f. had been given such time bound promotion in the year 2001 w.e.f. 28.1.1993. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, has been availing the benefit of such promotion under Time Bound Statute w.e.f. 28.1.1993 but then he has a legitimate grievance that had he been considered for promotion under Merit Promotion Statute, his such promotion could have been dated back to 28.1.1991. When the matter was heard on last occasion by 3 this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had fairly submitted that he was not in a position to explain the inordinate delay in claiming such promotion under Merit Promotion Statute inasmuch even after being given Time Bound Promotion in the year 2001 w.e.f. 1993, there was a clear delay of six years. Today, he has accordingly filed an undertaking of the petitioner that the petitioner will not claim seniority over others who have been given such promotion under Merit Promotion Statute, if his promotion would be dated back 28.1.1991. The issue, therefore now gets confined to the dating back of the promotion on the post of Reader inasmuch as even today he is having the post of Reader w.e.f. 28.1.1993 and therefore if he is found suitable under the Merit Promotion Statute, all that he can get is his promotion being dated back 28.1.1991 as the petitioner has already given an undertaking that he will not claim seniority with others who have been given such promotion under Merit promotion Statute. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the University to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Reader under Merit 4 Promotion Statute and take a final decision within a period of period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)