- (1.) Present petition was initially filed by Dr. Indra Pratap Singh seeking writ of mandamus to promote the petitioner on the post of University Professor under the eight years merit-promotion scheme, as per the recommendation made by the University Service Commission dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). During the pendency of the writ petition, original petitioner had expired and his wife was permitted to be substituted as petitioner vide order 30.03.2009 and respondent No. 3 was permitted to be impleaded as respondent on the ground that his promotion on the post of Professor is under challenge saying it was against the recommendation made by the University Service Commission.
(2.) Brief undisputed facts of the present case are as under :-- Original petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 16.08.1977. Petitioner was promoted on the post of Reader with effect from 16.08.1887, under the statute for time bound promotion of Lecturer to the post of Reader dated 24.12.1986, on completion of 10 years service, on the recommendation of University Service Commission. Undisputedly, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Lecturer on 05.11.1979 and was promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 27.11.1987 under the statute regarding merit promotion. Undisputedly, Bihar State University Service Commission, vide letter dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition), has made recommendation for the promotion of Readers to the post of University Professors under the merit-promotion scheme. In the recommendation letter dated 10.11.2001, petitioner's name is mentioned at serial No. 1, while name of the respondent No. 3 is mentioned at serial No. 2, Petitioner was not granted promotion to the post of University Professor, ignoring the recommendation dated 10.11.2001 and respondent No. 3 was given promotion to the post of University Professor vide order dated 13.05.2004 with effect from 27.11-1995.
(3.) Respondent-University as well as respondent No. 3 have taken stand that since petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader under the time bound promotion scheme, while respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Reader under the merit-promotion scheme, therefore, on the post of Professor, name of respondent No. 3 was rightly recommended by the Commission under the merit-promotion scheme; University Service Commission had wrongly recommended name of the petitioner under merit-promotion scheme; Alternatively. since the petitioner was promoted as Reader under the time bound scheme, therefore, his name should be deemed to have been recommended under the time bound promotion scheme.;