IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2307 of 2007 1. SHANTA SINHA, wife of Binod Bihari Prasad Sinha, at present Professor-in-Charge, Reader in Department of Political Science, Ram Briksha Benipuri Mahila College, Muzaffarpur. 2. Smt. Krishna Roy, wife of Sachchidanand Roy, at present Reader in Department of Economics, Ram Briksha Benipuri Mahila College, Muzaffarpur. 3. Smt. Usha Kiran Sinha, wife of Ram Lal Prasad Singh, at present Reader in Department of History, Ram Briksha Benipuri Mahila College, Muzaffarpur. 4. Vijaya Laxmi Singh, wife of Binay Kumar Singh, at present Reader in Department of Philosphy, Ram Briksha Benipuri Mahila College, Muzaffarpur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERsity, Muzaffarpur, through its Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Registrar, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 11.10.2010 Having heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University in respect of the following relief; “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Memo No.B/3880 dated 24.12.1996, Memo No. B/2067 dated 21.10.1995, Memo No. B/124 dated 9.3.1995 and Memo No. B/8838 dated 1.3.1989 (Annexure- 8 series) all issued under the signature of the Registrar, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur to the extent petitioners are concerned, whereby and 2 whereunder the petitioners have been granted their promotion with effect from 1.6.1988 to the post of Reader instead of being granted the same on completion of ten years of service as a Lecturer in the College and further for issuance of consequential writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent authorities to shift the date of promotion of the petitioners as Reader from 1.6.1988 to the earlier dated i.e. on completion of ten years of service as Lecturer as envisaged under the relevant rules/ provisions, governing such promotion and also to pay the arrears of salary or to any enhancement in pay by virtue of grant of such promotion from an earlier date, and/or for issuance of any other appropriate writ or writs, orders or directions to which the petitioners may be found legally entitled to.” this Court is of considered opinion that though the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned orders is quite belated inasmuch as they were passed way back in the year 1995-1996, whereas this writ application was filed on 21.2.2007, but then considering the aspect that the University has also not clarified its stand in the counter affidavit as to why the petitioners have not been given the benefit of their past service for the period 1978 to 1987 in their time bound promotion this Court will have no option but to remit the matter back to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to find out as to what would be the date of 3 substantive appointment of the petitioners inasmuch as the time bound promotion statutes dated 24.12.1986, which admittedly would be applicable in the case of the petitioner, reads as follows: “ Subject:- Statute for time bound promotion of Lecturers to the posts of University Professors. I am directed to invite a reference on the above subject and to say that the Chancellor on the recommendation of Bihar Inter University Board and the State Government has been pleased to approve the following Statute under Section 50(2) of the Bihar Inter- University Board Act, 1981 for implementation in your University. 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as contained in the Statutes; it is hereby provided that:- (1) A Lecturer, serving in a University Department or in Degree College managed and maintained by the University shall on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, be promoted on the basis of time bound scheme to the post of Reader, subject to the following conditions:- (a) That, he holds the qualification as prescribed for the post of Lecturer under the Statute enforced at the time of his appointment as lecturer and has fulfilled the conditions, if any attached thereto as laid down in the Statute: (b) that, he holds substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer, (c) that he has completed at least ten years of continuous service as lecturer in one or more Universities; 4 Provided that the service rendered in a degree College during the period the College was not affiliated in the subject concerned even up to the Intermediate standard, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of this Statute; Provided further that the service rendered in more than one University shall be deemed to be continuous if the period elapsed between leaving the service of a University and joining the service of another University does not exceed the normal joining time as prescribed in the Service Statute.” (underlining for emphasis) From the reading of the aforementioned statutes, which do govern the case of the petitioners, it becomes absolutely clear that one of the prerequisite condition for granting time bound promotion was the date of substantive appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners’ claim that their date of substantive appointment is in the years 1970- 1974 whereas the University has been treating the date of substantive appointment in the year 1978 when the University had recommended to the government for creation of such post and on which the petitioners were appointed after they were created at the time of grant of affiliation upto B. A. course and degree level to their college. It is true that appointment made by the Governing 5 Body of the private affiliated college prior to the period of such affiliation and consequential sanction of post cannot be counted towards the substantive appointment of the petitioners and there would also be no difficulty at least in accepting this part of submission of learned counsel for the respondent that a substantive appointment can be necessarily made against only a sanctioned post but then the crucial question would be as to what is the date of sanction of posts of the petitioners on which their appointments were made by the Governing body in the prescribed manner. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that petitioners are founder teachers and therefore they would be deemed to have been appointed against the first sanctioned post in the College from the date the College was granted initial affiliation upto Intermediate level. Unfortunately, there is no such pleading in the writ application to show either the date of sanction of the post of lecturer at the time of affiliation of the College in the intermediate level by the State Government or any order showing sanction of posts for the intermediate level of the College. There is also no averment by the petitioners that there was no one else except them working against the 6 first sanctioned post of Lecturer in their respective subject. The College however is now a constituent college and therefore the University also has some difficulty in finding out the details with regard to the past history of the period when the College was only an affiliated college but then if the University has to ultimately fix the date of effective promotion under the aforesaid Time Bound Statutes and a period of 10 years have to be computed in terms of the such statute dated 24.12.1986, it will have to find out and fix the date of their substantive appointment on the post of lecturer. This aspect being wholly absent in the pleading of either of the parties requires to be gone into afresh and as such this Court would direct the respondents to do the needful by passing a reasoned order as with regard to the effective date of granting time bound promotion to the petitioners after taking into account all the parameters of time bound promotion statutes dated 24.12.1986 including their substantive appointment and working against sanctioned posts of Lecturers in the respective departments of tbe affiliated college before its being made constituent unit of the University. It is however made clear that the basic test 7 for such substantive appointment would be the availability of sanctioned post as created and approved by the State Government and the appointment of the petitioners against those sanctioned posts in the prescribed manner as laid down in the relevant 1960 Act or its statutes / 1976 Act or its statutes. As these questions of fact can also be explained by the petitioners by producing evidence in support of their respective case, this Court would also give liberty to the petitioners to file their separate compact representation with evidence as with regard to their claim of shifting of their date of promotion beyond one which has been notified by the University. Such exercise for reconsideration by the University and its officials will be taken up only after the petitioners would file their individual separate representation along with documents and a copy of this order. It is hoped that University will also do the needful by passing a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners. While it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, it is observed that if the petitioners are found 8 entitled for any revision of the date of their time bound promotion by preponing it to an earlier date which may also make them entitled for consequential financial benefit, the same shall also be extended to them in next three months of such an order passed by the University. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)