PATNA UNIVERSITY versus AWADH KJSHORE PD. YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 05-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
1 
PATNA UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
AWADH KJSHORE PD. YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MAY 5, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Bihar Inter University Board Ac' 1981 : Time Bound promotion 
Scheme for Lecturers and Readers-Requirements for-Grant of temporary C 
promotion awaiting reconimendations of State University Commis-
sion-Promotion recommended by Con1mission-Subsequent withdrawal of 
recom1nendation by Contmission on the ground that Screening Conimittee 
was not constituted in tenns of the Statute--Consequential reversion order by 
Universitj-Directions by Suprenze Coult. 
D 
A Time Bound Promotion Scheme for Lecturers and Readers was 
framed by the State of Bihar under which Lecturers and Readers were to 
be promoted on completion of the prescribed continuous senrice. However, 
under the scheme, promotions were to be deemed to be personal promo-
tions but were not automatic and were to be made on the r·ecommendations 
of the Bihar State University Service Commission on consideration of 
experience and C.C. Roll of the teachers concerned and in the absence 
thereof on the basis of experience and certificates from the Heads of 
University Departments or Principals of Colleges concerned in regard to 
E 
the satisfactory service of the teachers after the same were screened by a 
F 
Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty 
concerned, the Head of the University Department concerned and two 
experts appointed by the Vice- Chancellor from the panel prepared by the 
Bihar Inter University Board. Further, the report of the Screening Com-
mittee was to be referred to the Commission for its recommendation and 
the final decision was to be taken by the Syndicate and in the absence of G 
Syndicate by the Vice-Chancellor on receipt of the recommendation of the 
Commission. However, temporary promotions, subject to recommendation 
by the Commission, were permissible, but in case the Commission does 
not recommend for promotion, the temporary promotion given to such a 
teacher shall cease to be effective immediately. 
H 
905 
A 
B 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[199~] 3 S.C.R. 
The respondents were promoted from the posts of Lecturer to the 
posts of Reader on temporary basis aw'aiting the recommendation of the 
Commission. The Comn1ission in due course sent its recom1nendaUon, but 
later withdrew its recommendation on the ground that the Screening 
Committee was not constituted. as per the provisions of the statute inas-
much as in place of ret1uired expert some other person had participated 
as expert. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned Universities, 
issued reversion orders of the respondents. The respondents challenged 
the orders before the High Court which quashed the orders passed by the 
Vice ChanceHors of the different Universities reverting the respondents 
from the posts of Reader to the Post of Lecturer. Various Universities and 
C 
the Bihar State University Service Commission fi!ed appeals in this court. 
D 
E 
On behall' of the appelhmts, it was contended that since the promo-
tions given to the respondents "'ert' not in accordance with the statute, the 
c:ommission was justified in "ithdrawing its recommendation and conse-
c1uently the Vice-Chancellors of the different Universities had to withdraw 
the promotions. 
On behalf of the respondents it "'as contended that promotions 
under the Time Bound Promotion Schen1e being personal promotions the 
same could not be treated at par \\-'ith the regular promotions where the 
rule of seniority-cum-merit is applied. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is true that personal promotion under the Time Bound 
F 
Promotion Scheme cannot be treated at par with promotion from a lower 
post to a higher post where not only seniority but even merit has to be 
examined by a duly constituted Committee or Commission. At the same 
time, it does not appear from the relevant Statute, that the Committee was 
required only to examine whether the person concerned is holding a 
G 
substantive post of Lecturer and has completed at least ten years of 
continuous service as a Lecturer in one or more universities. If that was 
the requirement, one fails to understand a> to why the C.C. Rolls and in 
absence thereof the certificate from the Head of the University Department 
or Principal of the College concerned along with the experience of the 
persons concerned ar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.