- (1.) WE have heard both sides and gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) PETITIONER -respondent was a Reader in Ranchi University. He claimed for Time Bound Promotion to the post of Professor on completing 16 years of service, which was completed in 1986. The University initially gave him provisional promotion to the post of Professor under the statutes with effect from 1986. However, for the purpose of finalization of the promotion, the matter went before the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (referred hereinafter as 'Commission'). The Commission recommended for the grant of time bound promotion to the post of Professor for the petitioner -respondent w.e.f. 1988 instead of 1986. The petitioner claimed for promotion in that category w.e.f. 1986. The Commission was a party to the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge but chose not to file a counter affidavit although represented by its Standing Counsel.
(3.) ALTHOUGH , in absence of a counter affidavit from the Commission, reasons for the 2 years delay of promotion cannot be said to be absolutely clear, but apparently the delay in the date for granting promotion between 1986 and 1988 was on account of a decision by the University enhancing qualification. The decision was struck down as it had been taken by way of administrative decision without consequential amendment in the statutes. This was upheld by the Supreme Court.;