Case Background
The petitioner was a teacher in the subject of Chemistry in a constituent college under Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.
He was promoted as Reader by order dated 22.12.1971. Later, on completion of 16 years of service, he was considered for time bound promotion to the post of University Professor.
The Vice Chancellor, exercising powers of the Syndicate under Section 79A of the Bihar State University Ordinance, 1986, promoted the petitioner as University Professor with effect from 01.12.1985. This promotion was, however, made subject to concurrence of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission.
Subsequently, an order was passed by which the effective date of promotion of the petitioner as Professor was shifted from 01.12.1985 to 08.01.1993. According to the petitioner, this was done without any reason and had the effect of placing him under a 25 years time bound promotion scheme instead of the 16 years scheme under which he had already been promoted.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12693 of 2000 before the Patna High Court. The matter remained pending for a long time, and when it was finally taken up on 12.04.2022, the Court declined the request for adjournment and heard the case on merits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The single most important question before the Patna High Court was whether the University could legally shift the petitioner from the 16 years time bound promotion scheme to the 25 years scheme and change his promotion date from 01.12.1985 to 08.01.1993 without assigning reasons.
On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel argued that he had already been promoted as Professor with effect from 01.12.1985, after completion of 16 years of service, by exercise of powers under Section 79A of the Bihar State University Ordinance, 1986. The promotion was based on his eligibility and research work, which he had submitted for consideration.
Counsel submitted that once such promotion was granted, there was no occasion to treat him under the 25 years time bound promotion scheme. The later order shifting his promotion date to 08.01.1993 was said to be arbitrary and unsupported by any reason.
It was further submitted that earlier he had been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 7,300/-, but after the change he was put in a lower pay scale of Rs. 5,700/-. Thus, the shifting of the scheme and date directly affected his pay and financial benefits.
The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that at least five persons junior to the petitioner had been granted the benefit of promotion under the 16 years time bound scheme. No explanation was offered by the University for denying him similar treatment, even though his achievements in Chemistry, including publication of research papers and participation in national and international conferences, were outstanding.
On the other hand, the University filed a counter affidavit explaining its stand. It stated that the petitioner’s name had initially been recommended for promotion to University Professor on completion of 16 years of service, but the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission did not approve his name. Since concurrence was not given, the University claimed that the petitioner could not be promoted under the 16 years scheme.
According to the University, a Screening Committee was thereafter formed consisting of the Vice Chancellor, the Dean of the relevant faculty, and two experts. This Committee found the petitioner suitable for promotion under the 25 years time bound scheme, while five other persons were found suitable under the 16 years scheme. Based on this, the petitioner was promoted as Professor with effect from 08.01.1993.
After hearing both sides, the Court examined whether this explanation was sufficient and lawful.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted first that the petitioner “stood already promoted” as Professor with effect from 01.02.1985 (the judgment later uses this date, apparently in place of 01.12.1985) as per notification annexed as Annexure 3. The initial promotion had been granted, though subject to concurrence of the Commission.
The Court observed that later a Screening Committee was formed and it recommended promotion of the petitioner under the 25 years time bound scheme. However, the judgment clearly records that “no reasons have come forward for shifting the petitioner from 16 years promotion scheme to 25 years time bound scheme.”
Importantly, the Court held that there was no adverse material on record against the petitioner. There was “not adversity to his discredit.” Therefore, once a person has been found fit for promotion, there cannot be a distinction between his earlier recommendation and a subsequent recommendation unless there is some change in his service record.
The Court then explained that the 16 years and 25 years time bound promotion schemes are independent of each other. A person who is earlier considered under the 16 years scheme must either be rejected under that scheme by a clear decision or promoted under it. Shifting him silently to the 25 years scheme later, without any reason, is not permissible.
The judgment also notes that there was no order of the Screening Committee rejecting the promotion earlier awarded to the petitioner under the 16 years scheme. In other words, the earlier promotion was never formally set aside or refused.
Justice Sharma emphasised that granting approval to a promotion cannot be an unguided discretion. It must be based on “cogent reasons which must come forward in the reply.” In this case, the reply filed by the University was described as “total laconic” because it did not disclose why the petitioner’s date of promotion had been shifted.
The Court further took note of the fact that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted under the 16 years scheme. This reinforced the unfairness and arbitrariness in changing the petitioner’s promotion scheme and date.
The Court also observed that though a time bound promotion scheme is a reference point for selection to the post, the actual decision should still be based on proper scrutiny. The system cannot be used arbitrarily to disadvantage one employee without justification.
In the absence of any reasoned decision or adverse material, the Court concluded that the action of the University in shifting the date of promotion from 01.02.1985 to 08.01.1993 was illegal.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order shifting the year of promotion was quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner be treated as promoted with effect from 01.02.1985 as per notification (Annexure 3).
The Court also held that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. This means that all pay, allowances, seniority and any other service benefits that would have flowed from his promotion from 01.02.1985 instead of 08.01.1993 must be granted to him.
Finally, the Patna High Court directed that implementation of the order must be done positively within a period of two months. This puts a clear time limit on the University to correct the petitioner’s records and extend financial and other benefits.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for teachers and employees of universities and similar institutions who are promoted under time bound schemes.
It clarifies that once an employee is found fit and promoted under a particular scheme, the authority cannot later downgrade or shift the employee to another scheme, or change the effective date of promotion, without clear, written reasons.
For employees, especially in Bihar universities, it shows that if juniors are given benefits under a scheme and seniors are denied without justification, courts can intervene. The Patna High Court has made it clear that promotions and concurrence by commissions must rest on reasoned decisions, not silent changes.
The decision also protects financial rights. Changing a promotion date can mean loss of higher salary and pension benefits for many years. By restoring the earlier date and ordering all consequential benefits, the Court has reinforced that arbitrary administrative actions affecting pay and seniority will not be allowed.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a university shift a teacher’s promotion from a 16 years time bound scheme to a 25 years scheme and change the promotion date without giving any reasons, especially when juniors have been promoted under the 16 years scheme?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that without cogent reasons, and in the absence of any adverse material or a clear order rejecting the earlier promotion, the University cannot arbitrarily shift the employee to another scheme or alter the promotion date. The earlier promotion date must stand.
Issue: Is the approval or concurrence of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for time bound promotion a matter of pure discretion?
Answer: No. While concurrence is required, the Court held that granting or withholding approval must be based on cogent reasons. A laconic reply with no reasons for change of promotion date is not acceptable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judgments or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12693 of 2000
Case Title: Dr. U.N. Pandey v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment: 12.04.2022
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 61
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shantanu Kumar
- For the Respondents: Mr. Yugal Kishore
Respondents: Lalit Narayan Mithila University, its Vice-Chancellor, Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar, and Principal, Samastipur College, Samastipur
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging alteration of promotion date and applicable time bound promotion scheme for a University Professor
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 12693 of 2000
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
