JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Leave granted.

2. Finding him eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the time bound promotion scheme and being satisfied that the respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite qualification, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Patna quashed the impugned notification dated 4.10.1996 and held the respondent No. 1 to have been promoted with effect from 1.2.1985 and not with effect from 1.6.1992. The Letters Patent Appeals filed were dismissed vide the impugned judgment in these appeals. The Appellants, the University and the State of Bihar are mainly aggrieved by the findings of the High Court in so far as it, after quashing the order of the Registrar, declared the respondent No. 1 to have been promoted with effect from 1.2.1985. It is urged that after setting aside the impugned notification in the writ petition, the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for consideration of the case of the respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Professor.

3. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Psychology in Doranda College on 16.8.1967 and he obtained the Ph.D degree on 14.2.1974. He was promoted to the post of Reader on 2.8.1991 with effect from 14.11.1980. On 15.4.1990 the respondent No. 1 was promoted to the post of University Professor from the year 1985 and his name was recommended to the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). Vide notification dated 14.10.1996 the Vice Chancellor of the University directed the promotion of the respondent to the post of Professor under the time bound promotion scheme with effect from 16.9.1992. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 was that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 1.2.1985, after completion of 16 years of continuous service and not with effect from 16.9.1992 on the basis of completion of 25 years of continuous service.

4. It is conceded before us that there are two schemes for time bound promotion to the post of University Professor, viz., (i) 15 years scheme under wich a Reader can be promoted as Professor on completion of 16 years continuous service as Reader/ Lecturer and (ii) 25 years scheme whereunder a Reader can be promoted as Professor on completion of 25 years of continuous service as teacher not below the rank of Lecturer. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 had been promoted to the Post of Reader with effect from 14.11.1980 and was selected by the Screening Committee under 16 years scheme for promotion to the post of Professor in 1990 with retrospective effect. Vide notification dated 15.4.1990 he was promoted on provisional basis to the post of Professor with effect from 1.2.1985 subject to the approval of the Commission. The Commission is stated to have not taken any decision in the matter upto 6.4.1995 when it asked the University to constitute new Screening Committee for selection of teachers for promotion to the post of Professor on the ground that the Screening Committee which made the selection in 1990, was not properly constituted. Despite the fact that respondent No. 1 was working as Professor in view of his provisional promotion, he was compelled to apply again for promotion to the post of Professor under both the schemes but he was selected only under the latter scheme of 25 years.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that as the recommendation by the Screening Committee and consequent promotion was subject to the concurrence of the Commission and the Commission had not approved the promotion, the same had lapsed under sub-section (10) of Section 58 of the Bihar State Universities Act which, inter alia, provide :

"Notwithstanding to the contrary contained in this Act or Statute, Rules or Regulations made thereunder promotion given on the post of Reader or Professor or officer of the University shall not be val