The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive power of the University in the absorption process of staff from taken-over colleges and the limitations on the State Government's power under Section 35 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Though both the cases were reserved for Judgment on different dates but as the facts/issues in both the writ petitions are same and similar, they are being disposed of with a common order.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 7555 of 2012 has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing part of the order dated 27.06.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the said respondent has wrongly held that during the period from 09.02.1985 to 30.04.1986, there was no concurrence of the College Service Commission in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 18.05.2007 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the said respondents has illegally and arbitrarily fixed the wrong date of substantive appointment of the petitioner contrary to report of Hon''ble S.C. Agarwal Commission. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to his promotion to the post of Reader under 10 years'' Time Bound Promotion Statute, as contained in letter No. BSU-27/85-4032/GS(1) dated 24.12.1986 and pay the arrears of salary and grant the consequential benefits accruing thereof.

Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 888 of 2015 has approached this Court with a prayer for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Reader from the post of Lecturer under the time bound promotion scheme. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of absorption of the petitioner as 28.02.1982 from 30.04.1986, as recommended by the University vide its letter dated 17.03.2008.

4. The factual exposition as has been delineated in these writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 888 of 2015 was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Political Science at Markham College on 20.07.1981, on unsanctioned post which was later on sanctioned w.e.f. 28.02.1982, after following the due process of law by the General Body of the College. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 7555 of 2012 was appointed on sanctioned post, as Lecturer in the department of Philosophy. The Bihar College Service Commission also recommended the names of the petitioners. Meanwhile, a conscious decision was taken by the unified State of Bihar in the year 1986 that all the affiliated colleges will be taken over by the respective Universities and accordingly, the same was implemented in the year 1987. In the same decision of the State Government, the Universities were directed to obtain from each of the affiliated colleges, the information regarding sanctioned posts of teaching and non-teaching staff existing on the date of taking over of the colleges as constituent colleges. Thereafter, a Three Men Committee, which was constituted by the Universities, had completed its investigation for submitting necessary information in the prescribed format showing separately names of teaching and non-teaching staff working against the sanctioned post. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State Government has also created a Three Men High Level Committee to enquiry into the number of post and also about the persons who were working on sanctioned/recommended post on 17.01.1987. Meanwhile, the government also instituted a Vigilance Enquiry for removal of the employees of fourth phase constituent colleges, which compelled the employees to move before the Hon''ble Court in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995, in which an order of status quo was passed by the Division Bench with a direction to the Universities to consider the cases of the employees of fourth phase colleges. In compliance of the said order, the respondents continued to make payment to the present petitioners but the Government of Unified State of Bihar moved before the Hon''ble Supreme Court by f