JUDGMENT : N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. These two writ applications have been heard together as similar and identical questions of facts and law are involved in them. They are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT :. There is a College at Dinapur in the district of Patna known as Bindeshwar Singh College. This is an institution which is affiliated to the Magadh University for imparting education both in Arts and Science upto the B.A. and B.Sc. standard. Shri Kamal Narayan Jha, the petitioner in C.W.C.C. 121 of 1968, was appointed a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Mathematics on the 28th of October, 1960 by the Governing Body of the College, the Secretary of which is respondent no. 2 in both the writ applications. He was confirmed in the said post on the 28th of October, 1961. He was a mere graduate when he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant. He passed his M.Sc. examination in Mathematics from Bihar University in the year 1966 and obtained a high second class degree. Thereafter he was allowed to do teaching in Mathematics and engage B.Sc. class including Honours class from 13-9-66. Annexure D, a copy of the certificate of the Principal filed with the rejoinder of the petitioner, would show that Shri Jha worked as a temporary Lecturer in Mathematics from 13-9-66 to 31-1-67 and again reverted to his substantive post of Laboratory Assistant thereafter. Shri Krishnanand Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968, was appointed a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Psychology in the B.S. College on the 7th of August, 1965. He had, however, obtained in 1964 a high second class M.A. degree in Psychology. In this case the certificate of the Principal (Annexure 5) filed with the rejoinder of the petitioner would show that he worked as Lecturer in Psychology from 29-11-65 to 31-1-66 in the session 1965-66 and again from 1-8-66 to 31-1-67 in the session 1966-67. He engaged honours and pass classes of the degree course. 2. It appears that substantive posts of Lecturers in Mathematics and Psychology fell vacant in the College sometime in the year 1967. Both the petitioners applied for being appointed to the posts of Lecturer in their respective subject. He engaged honours and pass classes of the degree course. 2. It appears that substantive posts of Lecturers in Mathematics and Psychology fell vacant in the College sometime in the year 1967. Both the petitioners applied for being appointed to the posts of Lecturer in their respective subject. It would appear from a resolution of the Governing Body passed in a meeting held on 17th September, 1967, copy of which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Governing Body in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968, that it was decided, because of their satisfactory service when they worked temporarily in the posts of Lecturer, to appoint them to the posts in the substantive vacancy by promotion. On the basis of this resolution, both the petitioners were allowed to join the posts of Lecturer on 28-9-67. A reference was made to the University Service Commission for concurrence in their appointment by a letter written by the Secretary of the Governing Body on 13-11-67, a copy of which is Annexure C in C.W.J.C. 121 of 1968 and Annexure 4 in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968. Of course, in Annexure C the resolution of the Governing Body is not quoted and it is found quoted in Annexure 4. Annexure C was meant for concurrence in the appointment of Shri Jha and Annexure 4 was meant for concurrence in the appointment of Shri Singh. The concurrence, it is clear, was asked for treating the appointment of the two petitioners by promotion to the post of Lecturer from their substantive post of Laboratory Assistant which they were holding previously. 3. The University Service Commission, the Secretary of which is respondent no. 1 in both the cases, refused to give concurrence, this is dated 5-1-68 Annexure B in one case and Annexure 3 in the other. This is the impugned ORDER :in both the writ applications. The letter of respondent no. 1 dated 5-1-68 addressed to respondent no. 2 states that since Sarveshri Kamal Narayan Jha and Krishnanand Sigh were Laboratory Assistants, they could not be promoted to the post of lecturer in view of the intimation given by the Magadh University in their letter dated the 19th of September, 1967. The letter of respondent no. 1 dated 5-1-68 addressed to respondent no. 2 states that since Sarveshri Kamal Narayan Jha and Krishnanand Sigh were Laboratory Assistants, they could not be promoted to the post of lecturer in view of the intimation given by the Magadh University in their letter dated the 19th of September, 1967. In the second paragraph it was stated that under Section 48A of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 (Bihar Act 14 of 1960) their appointment to the post would automatically terminate on 16-3-68 on expiry of 6 months from the date of their appointment. 4. The petitioners have obtained a rule from this Court against respondents 1 and 2 as also against the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University, respondent no. 3, to show cause why the decision of the University as contained in their letter dated 19th September, 1967, a copy of which is Annexure A to the writ application in C.W.j.C. 121 of 1968--which Annexure will be hereinafter referred to as applicable to both the cases--as also the refusal of the University Service Commission as communicated in their letter dated 5-1-68 (Annexure B) be not quashed. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of all the three respondents. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 at the time of hearing by Mr. Ramananda Sinha. Mr. Sankat Haran Singh appearing for respondent no. 2 has supported the case of the petitioners. 5. The argument of the petitioners is based upon the definition of 'teacher' in Clause (r) of Section 2 of the Magadh University Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 4 of 1962), which is identical to the definition of the word 'teacher' in Clause (p) of Section 2 of Bihar Act 14 of 1960. Considering the effect of the definition of 'teacher' in Clause (p) a Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, decided in (1) Basudeo Chandra Sinha V. Chancellor, University of Bihar (A.I.R. 1966 Pat 11) that a Laboratory Assistant who is factually imparting instruction in a department maintained by a college is a teacher within the meaning of the said Act and was entitled to promotion under Article 4 of Statute XVI of the University of Bihar. It is admitted by all parties concerned in these cases that the same Statutes are applicable to the case of the Magadh University also. It is admitted by all parties concerned in these cases that the same Statutes are applicable to the case of the Magadh University also. Strongly relying, therefore, upon the Bench decision of this Court in Basudeo Chandra Sinha's case, submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the view of the University contained in Annexure A is not sustainable in law and consequently the refusal of the University Service Commission contained in Annexure B also must fall. In reply learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 pointed out the difference brought about by coming into force of Section 48A of Bihar Act 14 of 1960. It may be mentioned here that the said section has been incorporated and adopted in the Magadh University Act by Section 45 of that Act. By this method of adoption by legislation, therefore, Section 48A forms part of Bihar Act 4 of 1962 and governs the Magadh University and the colleges affiliated to it also. In the case of Basudeo Chandra Sinha, the petitioner was a Laboratory Assistant in Samastipur College. He was promoted and appointed to the post of a Lecturer on the 24th of January, 1962. The appointment was annulled by the Chancellor in exercise of his power under Section 4 of Bihar Act 13 of 1962 on the ground that a Laboratory Assistant could not be promoted to the post of a Lecturer. This Court set aside the ORDER :of the Chancellor on a plain reading of Clause (p of Section 2 of Bihar Act 14 of 1960 on the finding that the petitioner, although holding the post of a Laboratory Assistant, was imparting instruction. In Paragraph 6 of the JUDGMENT : at page 13 a reference to the introduction of Section 48A in Bihar Act 14 of 1960 is to be found. But the provision of that section was not considered because Section 48A had come into force later than the 24th of January, 1962, the date of appointment of Basudeo Chandra Sinha. Section 48A came into force on the 1st of March, 1962, when the Magadh University Act (Bihar Act 4 of 1962) also came into force. In the two cases under consideration, both the petitioners were appointed when Section 48A was in force as being a part of Bihar Act 4 of 1962. Section 48A came into force on the 1st of March, 1962, when the Magadh University Act (Bihar Act 4 of 1962) also came into force. In the two cases under consideration, both the petitioners were appointed when Section 48A was in force as being a part of Bihar Act 4 of 1962. The question for consideration, therefore, in these cases is, whether, in spite of an elaborate procedure prescribed for appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college under Section 48A, a person holding the post of a Laboratory Assistant and allowed to impart instruction in the college without his appointment having been approved or concurred in by the University Service Commission is a teacher who is entitled to be appointed to a substantive post of a Lecturer by promotion or whether he has a right to be considered for promotion under Clause (b) of Article 4(1) of Statute XVI? The answer to my mind must be in the negative. 6. As usual, Section 2 of Bihar Act 4 of 1962, the definition section, provides that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context in this Act the word 'teacher' will mean as defined in Clause (r). There is nothing in Section 48A to indicate that the same definition of 'teacher' is not to be adopted for the purpose of that section. Whenever, therefore, a teacher is appointed within the meaning of the Act, whether he is on the post of a Professor. Lecturer, Demonstrator or Laboratory Assistant, the requirement of Section 48A has got to be fulfilled. There does not seem to be any escape from this position. The designation or the nomenclature of the post does not matter. If a person is to be treated as a Teacher under the Act, his appointment also must be made in accordance with that Act. Sub-sections (6) to (9) of Section 48A, on a reasonable interpretation, keeping in view the underlying principle of introduction of Section 48A in the Act, would mean that the appointment to the post of a Teacher, if it is a substantive appointment, has got to be on the recommendation of the University Service Commission, which means, with their concurrence, irrespective of the question whether the appointment is by promotion or direct recruitment. In all cases, the appointment has to be on the basis of the recommendation of the University Service Commission. In all cases, the appointment has to be on the basis of the recommendation of the University Service Commission. Sub-section (10) empowers the Governing Body, even without consultation of the Commission, to make an appointment to the post of a Teacher if the appointment is not expected to continue for more than 6 months and cannot be delayed without detriment to the interest of the college. But under the proviso to Sub-section (10) if it is proposed to retain the person so appointed in the same post for a period exceeding 6 months, concurrence of the Commission is necessary, in the absence of which the appointment shall be deemed to have been terminated at the end of 6 months. It is generally found that recourse is taken to Sub-section (10) of Section 48A by the Governing Bodies in making appointment in substantive vacancies and then asking for concurrence of the Commission under the proviso to Sub-section (10). Even assuming that under Sub-section (10) appointment for a period of 6 months can be made in a substantive vacancy, it is clear to me that requirement of concurrence of the Commission under the proviso is not envisaged in such a situation. Ordinarily and generally, the appointment which can be made under Sub section (10) of Section 48A by the Governing Body should be in temporary vacancies which were not expected to continue for more than 6 months. But due to one reason or the other if the vacancy has continued beyond that period, concurrence of the Commission under the proviso can be asked for and given. But if concurrence is asked for making the appointment in a substantive vacancy on a substantive basis the requirements of Sub-sections (6) to (9) would come into play irrespective of the question whether the appointment sought to be made is by promotion or direct recruitment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners endeavoured to argue that under Article 1 of Statute XVI of the Statutes, the category of teachers includes only the Principal, the College Professor, the Lecturer or the Part-time Lecturer, it does not include Demonstrators or Laboratory Assistants who have been allowed to impart instruction in a college. Submission, therefore, was that the concurrence of the Commission is necessary under Section 48A of the Act, only when an appointment is made to the post of a teacher as enumerated in Article 1 of Statute XVI. Submission, therefore, was that the concurrence of the Commission is necessary under Section 48A of the Act, only when an appointment is made to the post of a teacher as enumerated in Article 1 of Statute XVI. I have no difficulty in rejecting this argument. In my opinion, so long the word 'teacher' only is there in Section 48A, it must be given the meaning which is mentioned in Clause (r) of Section 2 of the Magadh University Act, it cannot be confined to the type of teachers mentioned in Article 1. Under Article 4 it is legitimate to call out that before appointment is made by direct recruitment to the post of a teacher in a higher grade, the claim of teachers serving in a lower grade in the college for promotion has got to be examined and, if rejected, post can be filled by direct recruitment, otherwise it is reasonable to think on the language of Article 4 that if a teacher serving in a lower grade is found fit to be promoted then the post has got to be filled by promotion and not by direct recruitment. If a strict meaning is given to the word 'teacher' in Clause (b) of Article 4(1) on the basis of the enumeration in Article 1, one may think that it would apply only to those who are enumerated there. But as held in (1) Basudeo Chandra Sinha's case, the word in Clause (b) of Article 4(1) has to be given a liberal meaning and if a person is a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Magadh University Act, I have still no difficulty in holding that he will be a teacher who will be entitled to be promoted if found fit before the post is advertised for filling up by direct recruitment. But, then, to be a teacher under Section 2(r), he must be a teacher whose appointment to any grade at one time or the other has been concurred in or approved by the University Service Commission. Then and then only it can be said that he has got a right to be considered for promotion. 8. Coming to the facts of the two cases, it would be noticed that Shri Jha was allowed to impart instruction from 13-9-66 to 31-1-67 which was a period of less than 6 months. Then and then only it can be said that he has got a right to be considered for promotion. 8. Coming to the facts of the two cases, it would be noticed that Shri Jha was allowed to impart instruction from 13-9-66 to 31-1-67 which was a period of less than 6 months. It must have been a temporary or a stop-gap arrangement. As it appears from some of the materials in the records of these cases, he was allowed to work as a Lecturer at that time. He was qualified to work as a Lecturer and he was allowed to do so. Allowing him to work as such for a period less than 6 months did not require the sanction or concurrence of the University Service Commission. So, in the case of Shri Singh, as stated above, he was allowed to work in the sessions 1965-66 and 1966-67--on both the occasions for periods each of which was of less than 6 months. At that time when he was allowed to do so, concurrence of the Commission was not necessary. Both of them, as stated above, were appointed by the Governing Body on 17-9-67 when substantive vacancies occurred in the post of Lecturers of Mathematics and Psychology. Even assuming, although not accepting it, that such appointment could be made in exercise of the power of the Governing Body under Sub-section (10) of Section 48A, it is plain, as discussed above, that concurrence of the Commission cannot be asked for under the proviso to Sub-section (10) because to all intents and purpose appointment of the petitioners was in substantive vacancies purported to be by promotion. It could not be so by promotion because at the time of their appointment on 17-9-67 none of the petitioners was a teacher who had been appointed to the post by following the procedure at any time prescribed in Section 48A of the Act. 9. Annexure A, the letter of the Magadh University dated the 19th of September, 1967, reads as follows-- With reference to your letter no. 3947/U.S.C., dated 27th July, 1966 I am directed to inform you that as the teachers and lab-Assistants are in two categories of employment and methods of the appointments are also different lab-Assistants cannot be promoted to the post of teachers. 3947/U.S.C., dated 27th July, 1966 I am directed to inform you that as the teachers and lab-Assistants are in two categories of employment and methods of the appointments are also different lab-Assistants cannot be promoted to the post of teachers. In the view which I have expressed above with reference to Section 48A of the Act, it is difficult to find fault with this opinion of the University if it is confined to mean that a Laboratory Assistant qua Laboratory Assistant cannot be promoted to the post of a teacher. If at the time of promotion he was a teacher within the meaning of the Act, as explained by me above, then he can be promoted to the post of a teacher in a higher grade. It mattered little whether his designation continued as Laboratory Assistant or he was given the designation of Lecturer. But if he was not a teacher, it is plain that a Laboratory Assistant cannot be promoted to the post of a teacher. With this clarification of interpretation of Annexure A, therefore, I uphold it as being valid now. 10. The refusal of the University Service Commission based upon Annexure A can be well supported on the facts and in the circumstances of both the cases, as discussed by me above. The case of neither of the petitioners was one of promotion, Governing Body wanted to promote two members of their staff, who were Laboratory Assistants on 17-9-67 [not teacher within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Magadh University Act] to the post of a teacher. They could not do so. It could not be a case of promotion and, therefore, the refusal by the University Service Commission is justified and no direction contrary to that can be given in either of the cases. In the result, both the applications fail and are dismissed but in the circumstances there would be no ORDER :to cost in either.