Holding

The Court held that the screening committee and the Commission must duly perform their statutory duties; their failure rendered the reversion orders void and the promotions were to be restored with proper procedural directions.

Summary

The Bihar State University Service Commission had initially recommended temporary promotions of several lecturers to Readers under a Time‑Bound Promotion Scheme, but later withdrew its recommendations alleging that the screening committees were not constituted as required by the statute. The Vice‑Chancellors consequently issued reversion orders, which were challenged before the Patna High Court and set aside. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the withdrawal of the Commission's recommendation and the subsequent reversion orders were valid, and whether personal promotions under the scheme could be treated the same as regular promotions. The Court held that although personal promotions are not identical to regular promotions, the statutory procedure—including a properly constituted screening committee and the Commission’s considered recommendation—must be observed and cannot be treated as a mere formality. Since the screening committees and the Commission failed to fulfil their statutory duties, the reversion orders were invalid, and the promotions were restored with detailed directions for proper future processing. The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the withdrawal of the Commission's recommendation due to irregularities in the screening committee invalidates the temporary promotions.
Whether personal promotion under the Time‑Bound Promotion Scheme is subject to the same seniority‑cum‑merit requirements as regular promotion.
Whether the Vice‑Chancellors were authorized to revert the teachers to their former posts after the Commission's withdrawal.
Whether the screening committee and the Commission performed their statutory duties as mandated by the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981.

Legislation cited

Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981

Subjects

service lawtime‑bound promotion schemetemporary promotionuniversitystatutory dutyscreening committeepromotion withdrawalreversion order

Judgment

\ PATNA UNIVERSITY A
v.
AWADH KJSHORE PD. YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

MAY 5, 1994
B
[KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]

1 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 E
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
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
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199~] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.

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
D 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
E 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
substantive post of Lecturer and has completed at least ten years of
G 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 are to be screened b)' a Committee and after screening,
H c~ses of fit teachers have to be referred to the Commission for its recom~
PATNA UNIVERSITY v. A.KP. YADAV 907

mendation and thereafter, the Commission is to apply its mind for the A
purpose of making recommendation. This exercise by the Screening Com-
mittte and the Commission for the purpose of giving time-bound promo-
tion to the lecturers concerned, need not be at par with the process adopted
for giving regular promotions on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. At
the same time, it should not be an empty formality. (913-D-E, G-H, 914-A]
B
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Screening Commit-
tee as well as the Commission have not performed their statutory duty
while making recommendations for grant of promotion under the Time
1 Bound Promotion Scheme. However, taking all the facts and circumstances
into consideration, the following order is passed: [914-E] C
(i) A duly constituted Screening Committee shall consider the cases
only of such persons who had been considered earlier; [914-G]

(ii) Bihar Inter University Board is directed to make a panel, within
two months from the date of receipt of this order, consisting of sufficient D
number of experts so that there is no difficulty in selecting the experts from
the panel when the Screening Committee examine the cases of the Lec-
turers for promotion; [915-A]

(iii) The Committees should screen all such cases within six months
and report within two weeks of screening the cases of those who in the
E
opinion of the Committees, fulfil the prescribed conditions, for recommen-
dation to the Commission; (915-B]

(iv) The Commission shall sent its recommendation to the Syndi-
cate/Vice-Chancellors of the Universities concerned \\ithin two mOnths F
from the date of the receipt of the reports of the Committees; (915-C]

(v) It will be open to the concerned Vice-Chancellors to give tem-
porary promotions on the basis of the reports of the Committees in
accordance with the second proviso to clause 2 of the Statute. The final G
decision shall be taken by the SyndicateNice-Chancellors within one
month from the date of the receipt of the recommendations from the
Commission; (915-D]

(vi) Such Lecturers who have continued as Readers in spite of the
.L
orders of cancellation of their promotion by the Vice-Chancellors con- H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 3 S.C.R.

A cerned, because of the interim orders in the \\Tit application, shall continue
as such and shall be entitled to the salaries and emoluments of the posts
of Reader. However, those whose promotions have been withdrawn pur-
suant to the order of cancellation issued by the Vice-Chancellors con-
cerned, shall continue as Lecturers. They shall, however, not be liable to
B refund any excess amount which they have received for the period when
they were working as Readers; [915-E-F]

(vii) When the promotions are given under the aforesaid Time
Bound Promotion Scheme, the date of promotion shall be the same as had
been given to respondents concerned earlier. Those respondents who have
l
C been reverted because of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor concerned, if
promoted again, shall also be entitled to the salaries and other emolu-
ments with effect from their earlier dates of promotions; [915-G-H]

(viii) This order shall also govern the cases of others, who had
D similarly been promoted and whose promotions might have been cancelled
but who have not approached the High Court, by filing writ application.
[916-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2660-77
of 1993.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.93 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.P. 1921/93 & 2550 of 1993.

With

(C.P. Nos. 305-06 I.A. !'los. 11-15 of 1993)
F
Shanti Bhushan, Shashi Anugrah, R.K Garg, Barish N. Salve, K.K.
Venogopal, M.N. Krishnamani, Rajinder Sacher, Prashant Bhushan, Vidya
Sagar, K. C. Mohan Rao, Prabhes Kumar Yadav, A. Sharan, L.R. Singh
Ms. Vimla Singh, Yunus Malik, E.C. Vidya Sagar, M.P. Jha, A.K. Srivas-
G tave, Vikas Singh, Anil K. Chopra, B.P. Singh, Gopal Singh, Navin Prakash
and B.B. Singh for the Appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SINGH, J. The different Universities in the State of Bihar and
H the Bihar State University (constituent-colleges) Service Commission -'
PATNA UNIVERSITY v. A.KP. YADAV [N.P. SINGH,J.] 909

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') have filed these appeals for A
setting aside a judgment of the High Court, quashing the ord~rs passed by
the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities in question, cancelling the promo-
tions under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme, given to the writ
petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents').

The Statute regarding the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme was
B
framed on the recommendation of Bihar Inter University Board and the
State Government which was approved by the Chancellor under the
provisions of Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981. It was circulated by
Office Letter No. B.S.U.-27/25 - 4032 G.S. dated 21.12.1986. Under the
Scheme aforesaid, a Lecturer fiaving completed ten years of continues C
service as lecturer in one or more Universities can be promoted to the post
of Reader, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid
Statute. Similarly, a Reader, having completed the prescribed period of
continuous service as Reader can be promoted to the Post of University
Professor in accordance with the procedure preScribed in the said Statute. D

It appears that the case of the respondents in different appeals, for
promotion from the posts of Lecturer to the posts of Reader was con-
sidered under the aforesaid Time-Bound Promotion Scheme. They were
promoted on temporary basis on different dates between 1987 to 1992
awaiting the recommendation of the Commission. There is no dispute that
E
the Commission in due course sent its recommendation, in respect of
different Lecturers in the different Universities who had already been
promoted on temporary basis to the posts of Reader. The last such
recommendation is dated 25.01.1993. However, by a resolution dated
10.02.1993, the Commission withdrew its recommendation saying : F

............ .if the screening committee has not been constituted as per
11

the provisions of the statute and in the screening committee in
place of required expert some other person has participated as
expert, then the Commission treats them as irregular, accordingly G
their recommendation for promotion is derccommended."

It is said that thereafter, the concerned Universities, issued orders reverting
the respondents from the posts of Reader to the substantive posts of
Lecturer. It may be mentioned, that some of the respondents in the
different writ applications before the High Courl had also been promoted H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 3 S.C.R.

A from the posts of Reader lo the posts of University Professor on temporary
basis. It is an admitted position that recommendation of the Commission
had not been received by the Univer.sities, so far as their promotion from
the posts of Reader to the posts of University Professor is concerned. The
High Court has quashed the aforesaid resolution of the Commission dated
10.02.1993 withdrawing its recommendation. It has also quashed the dif-
B ferent orders issued by the Vice-Chancellors of the different Vniversities
reverting the respondents from the posts of Reader to the posts of Lec-
turer.

On behalf of the appellants, it was pointed out that the promotions
C given to the respondents under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme was
not in accordance with the Statute, framed for such promotions and as such
the Commission having learnt about the same had no option but to
withdraw its recommendation. Once the recommendation has been
withdrawn by the Commission, the Vice-Chancellors of the different
D Universities had to withdraw the promotions.

The Statute relating to the time-bound promotion of Lecturers to the
posts of Reader provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary as
contained in the Statute, a Lecturer serving in a University department or
in a degree college managed and maintained by the University, shall on the
E recommendation of the Commission, be promoted on the basis of the
Time-Bound Scheme to the post of Reader, subject to the conditions that
(a) he holds the qualification as prescribed for the post of Lecturer under
the Statute in force at the time of his appointment as Lecturer; (b) he holds
substantive appointment on the post of a Lecturer and has fulfilled the
F conditions laid down in the Statute; and (c) he has completed at least ten
years of continuous service as Lecturer in one of more Universities. Clause
2 of the Statute which is relevant is as follows :

"Such promotion shall be deemed to be personal promotion. It
.shall not be automatic but shall be made on the recommendation
G of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Con1-
mission on consideration of experience and C.C. Roll of the
teacher concerned.

Provided that where C.C. Rolls have not been maintained
H before implementation of these statutes, the ceases of teacher who
PATNA UNIVERSITY v. A.KP. YADAV[N.P.SINGH.J.J 911

are eligible for promotion as Reader or University Professor on A
the date of implementation of this statute, shall be considered by
the said commission on the basis of experience certificates from
the Heads of University Departments or ·Principals of Colleges
concerned in regard to the satisfactory service of the teachers after
the same have been screened by a Committee consisting of the B
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.

Provided further, that the report of the committee in each case C
shall be referred to the Bihar State University (Constituent Col-
leges) Service Commission for its recommendation but where in
the opinion of the committee a teacher fulfills the prescribed
conditions and is found fit to be promoted, the Syndicate may, on
the recommendation of the Vice- Chancellor order for promotion
of such a teacher on a temporary basis till final decision is taken D
on the recommendation of the said commission, but in case the
commission does not recommend for promotion, the temporary
promotion given to such a teacher shall cease to be effective
immediately.
E
Also provided that hereafter C.C. Rolls shall be regularly
maintained in respect of each teacher according to the procedure
and in the form to be approved by the Chancellor for the purpose."

Clause 4 provides that where a teacher is promoted to the post of Reader
or University Professor, as the case may be, such promotion shall take F
effect from the date on which the Lecturer entered the 11th year of his
qualifying service, as the case may be, or from the 1st February, 1985
whichever is later. In view of Clause 5, in case of a teacher, who is not
recommended by the said Commission for promotion as Reader may again
be considered for promotion after a period of one year has elapsed since G
his name was last considered. The promotion in such a case shall take
effect from the date of the recommendation of the Commission. Clause 11
says:

"The Registrar of the University with the approval of the Vice-
Chancellor shall place a list of eligible candidates giving all the H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A required information about each of them along with all the relevant
papers including service records and C.C. Rolls before the screen-
ing Committee to be appointed by the Vite-Chancellor for
scrutiny. The recommendation of the screening Committee along
with all the relevant papers shall be submitteci to the Bihar State '
University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission and the
B recommendation of the said commission shall be placed before the
Syndicate at the next meeting for orders."

Although the Statute has been framed to give time-bound promotion to
Lecturers to the posts of Reader after they complete at least ten years of
r
~

c continuous service as lecturer in one or more universities, the same Statute
says that promotions shall not be automatic. It shall be made on the
recommendation of the Commission on consideration of experience and
C.C. Roll of the teacher concerned. The first proviso to Clause 2 of the
Statute, says that where the C.C. Rolls have not been maintained before
D implementation of the Statute, the cases of the teachers who are eligible
for promotion as Readers on the date of implementation of the Statute,
shall be considered on the basis of the experience and certificates from the t
Heads of the University Departments or Principals of Colleges concerned,
+
in regard to the satisfactory service of the teachers. This has first to be
screened by a Committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of the
E
Faculty concerned, the Head of the University Department concerned and
"two experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel prepared J;:c
by the Bihar Inter University Board". In view of the second proviso, the
report of the Screening Committee has to be referred to the Commission
for its recommendation. The final decision has to be taken by the Syndicate
F and in the absence of Syndicate by the Vice-Chancellor on receipt of the
recommendation of the Commission. That proviso, however, in cases where
the Committee aforesaid is of the opinion that the teacher concerned
-.I

fulfills the prescribed conditions and has been found fit to be promoted,
enables the Syndicate./Vice-Chancellor to order promotion of such a
G tca~her on temporary basis till the final decision is taken on the rccom-
mendation of the Commission.

On behalf of the appellants i.e. the Commission and the Universities,
it was pointed out that although the relevant Statute has made it clear that
H even such time-bound promotion shall not be automatic and the satisfac- ;.. ,
PATNA UNIVERSITY v. A.K.P. YADAV [N.P. SINGH, J.] 913

tory records of service have to be properly screened by the Committee with A
the help of two experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel
prepared by the Bihar Inter University Board, in the present case, the
Committee has treated the promotion of the respondents concerned as
routine and automatic, after such respondents completed ten years of
continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities. It was pointed B
out that in most of the cases, the experts have not been appointed, as
required by the first proviso to Clause 2 of the Statute. The stand of the
respondents appears to be that promotion under the Time-Bound Promo-
1 tion Scheme being a personal promotion should not be treated at par with
the regular promotions from the posts of Lecturer to the posts of Reader C
where the rule of seniority-cum-merit is applied. In this connection, it was
pointed out that this is apparent from the expression "found fit to be
promoted" occurring in the second proviso to Clause 2 of the Statute.

It is true that personal promotion under the Time-Bound Promotion
Scheme cannot be treated at par with promotion from a lower post to a D
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
1
to examine whether the person concerned is holding a substantive post of
Lecturer and has completed at least ten years of continuous service as E
Lecturer in one or more Universities. If that was the requirement, we fail
to understand as to why the C.C. Rolls and in absence thereof the certifi-
cate from the Head of the University Department or Principal of the
College concerned along with the experience of the persons concerned are
to be screened by a Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean F
of the Faculty concerned, the Head of the University Department con-
cerned and "two experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from the Panel
prepared by the Bihar Inter University Board". After screening those
teachers who fulfill the prescribed conditions and are found fit to be
promoted, their cases have to be referred to the Commission for its G
recommendation. Only on the basis of the recommendations of the Com-
mission, promotions under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme are to be
given. The Screening Committee is to be properly constituted and has to
apply its mind to different cases before sending its opinion to the Commis-
sion. Thereafter, the Commission is expected to apply its mind for the H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A purpose of making recommendation. As already said earlier, this exercise
by the Screening Committee and the Commission for the purpose of giving
time-bound promotion to the lecturers concerned, need not be at par with
the process adopted for giving regular promotion on the principle of
seniority-cum-merit. At the same time, it should not be an empty formality.
B It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants, that the Screening
Committee mechanically recommended the cases of the Lecturers con-
cerned who were holding the posts of Lecturer on substantive basis and
had completed ten years of continuous service. It was also pointed out, that
in most of the cases, two experts had not been appointed by the Vice-Chan-
1
C cellor concerned from the panel prepared by the Bihar Inter University
Board. On behalf of the respondenls, it was stated that in view of the
attitude of the different Universities towards the experts who were in the
panel prepared by the Bihar Inter University Board, most of the were not
willing to participate in the proceedings of the Screening Committee. In
D this cdnnection-, reference was made to some of the cOmmunications ad-
dressed by the experts on different dates.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we are ~.

satisfied that the Screening Committee as well as the Commission have not
performed their statutory duty while making recommendations for grant of
E promotion under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme. At the same time,
we do not express any opinion as to whether the Commission had authority
to withdraw the recommendations, after having made them. But taking all
the facts and circumstances into consideration, We pass the following
order:
F
(i) Let the cases of the concerned respondents be placed before the
duly constituted Committees in accordance with the first proviso to Clause
2 of the Statute;

G (ii) The Screening Committees shall consider, in accordance with the
Statute aforesaid, cases only of such persons who had been considered
earlier. The case of no other person shall be considered by the Screening
Committees or the Commission;

(iii) Since in many cases, experts from the panel prepared by the
H Bihar Inter University Board were not available, Bihar Inter University
PATNA UNIVERSITY v. A.K.P. YADAV [N.P. SINGH, J.] 915

Board is directed to make a panel consisting of sufficient number of experts A
so that there is no difficulty in selecting the experts from the panel when
the Screening Committees are to examine the cases ot the Lecturers for
promotion. The Board shall prepare the panel within two months from the
receipt of this Order;
B
(iv) The Committees should screen all such cases within six months
from today and report within two weeks of screening the cases of those
who in the opinion of the Committees, fulfill the prescribed conditions, for
recommendation to the Commission;

(v) The Commission shall send its recommendation to the Syndi- c
cates/Vice-Chancellors of the Universities concerned within two months
from the date of the receipt of the reports of the Committees;

(vi) It will be open to the concerned Vice-Chancellors to give tem-
porary promotions on the basis of the reports of the Committees in D
accordance with the second proviso to Clause 2 of the Statute. The final
decision shall be taken by the Syndicates/Vice-Chancellors within one
month from the date of the receipt of the recommendations from the
Commission;
E
(vii) Such Lecturers who have continued as Readers in spite of the
orders of cancellation of their promotion by the Vice-Chancellors con-
cerned, because of the interim orders in the writ application, shall continue
as such and shall be entitled to the salaries and emoluments of the posts
... of Reader. However, those whose promotions have been withdrawn pur-
F
suant to the Order of cancellation issued by the Vice-Chancellors con-
cerned, shall continue as Lecturers. They shall, however, not be liable to
refund any excess amount which they have· received for the period when
they were working as Readers;

(viii) When the promotions are given under the aforesaid Time- G
Bound Promotion Scheme, the dates of promotion shall be the same as had
been given to respondents concerned earlier. Those respondents \Vho have
been reverted because of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor concerned, if
promoted again, .shall also be entitled to the salaries and other emoluments
with effect from their earlier dates of promotions; H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1994} 3 S.C.R.

A (ix) This order shall also govern the cases of others, who had similarly
been promoted from the posts of Lecturer to the posts of Reader, under
the .same Time-Bound Promotion Scheme, and \Vhose promotions might
have been cancelled but who have not approached the High Court, by filing
writ applications.
B The appeals are allowed in terms of the directions given above. The
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The petitions for contempt and
-·
the interlocutory applications are also disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

1