JUDGMENT : D.P. Sinha, J. In this writ application, the petitioner, namely Govind Kumar Pandey, has prayed that the advertisement (Annexure 9 to the petition) inviting applications for appointment to the post of lecturer in after called ‘the University’ issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called ‘the Commission’) be quashed, and the University be commanded to consider the case of the petitioner by making a reference to the Commission as to the suitability of his candidature for appointment to one of the posts advertised by the Commission. The petitioner was appointed a temporary lecturer in Botany on 15-11-72 (Annexure - 1) under the University and was allowed to continue as such by an ORDER :of the University, dated the 21st April, 1973 (Annexure-2). By a notification, dated the 10th May, 1973, the University terminated his service with effect from the afternoon of the 16th May, 1973 (Annexure-3).By an ORDER :of the same date (10-5-1973), the petitioner was reappointed on a sanctioned post with effect from the 18th May, 1973 (Annexure-4) and since then the has been continuing as a lecturer in Botany all the time. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of the benefit of the provisions of Article 211 (3) of the Statutes of the University by reason of the fact that although he has continued in the services of the University as a lecture. In Botany for more than two years concurrence with regard to his appointment has not been obtained by the University in hrs case though it had done so in the case of Sujit Kumar Sarkar, who was one of the appointees along with the petitioner vide Annexure-1, dated the 15th November, 1972. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the University has made a discrimination against the petitioner in this matter by not consulting the Commission with respect to him of the benefit of Article 211 (3) whereas it has enabled Sarkar and some others, similarly placed to get the benefit of the said provision by obtaining concurrence of the Commission with regard to them. It has been argued that there was absolutely no nexus between the purpose of the reference and the dates of initial appointments of the persons including the petitioner and Sarka, and some others named in Annexure-1 and that, therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to THE petitioner on account of non-consultation with the Commission with regard to him as the permanent posts of lecturers in Botany available have been advertised by the Commission for direct recruitment in complete disregard of his claim to be considered for the same under Article 211(3) of the Statutes of the University. 3. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor of University (respondent no. 3) has been filed on the basis 9f which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondent has submitted that the name of the petitioner had not been sent to the Commission for concurrence whereas those of Sujit Kumar Sarkar and certain other persons had been sent for concurrence of the Commission because the petitioner did not fall in the category or class to which Suitt Kumar Sarkar and the others belonged. It was said that whereas these persons had been initially appointed as temporary lecturers in 1966-67, the petitioner was first appointed as such in November 1972. According to the learned counsel, the classification made on the basis of the dates of the initial appointments was a reasonable classification and the petitioner had been rightly not grouped with Sarkar and the others for consultation with the Commission. It was further the case of respondent no. 2 the learned counsel submitted that there was a second category of temporary lecturers in respect of whom the Commission had been consulted for their permanent absorption. This was a group of those temporary lecturers in respect of whose temporary appointments, the Commission had at an earlier stage, concurred, whereas no such earlier concurrence of the Commission had been obtained in respect of the petitioner's temporary appointment. In these circumstances, learned counsel argued, the petitioner belonged to a third category, quite different from the above two groups and therefore no discrimination was made against him by not consulting the Commission about his suitability for permanent absorption. 4. The argument though apparently ingenius is devoid of substance, as it completely ignores the provisions of Article 211 (3) of the Statutes. 4. The argument though apparently ingenius is devoid of substance, as it completely ignores the provisions of Article 211 (3) of the Statutes. It is admitted that the petitioner having been appointed on the 15th November, 1972 has continued as a temporary lecturer in Botany with a break of one day and with effect from the 18th May, 1973, his service has been continuous uptil now (the writ petition was filed on 28.3.77). Article 211(3) of the Statutes which arc provisions made under Section 31 read with Section 30 of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') lays down as follows .- “211(3) Whenever a permanent post in any grade and pay scale is available for substantive appointment the claims of a University servant who has been holding a tenure or temporary post on the recommendation/concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission continuously for a period of two years or more in that grade and pay scale, who possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post and whose work is found to be satisfactory shall be considered in the first Instance for substantive appointment to the permanent posts." 5. It is admitted that seven permanent posts of lecturers in Botany are available (vide advertisement. dated 26.1.76 Annexure 9). The petitioner had, by the relevant date, already held a temporary post of lecturer in Botany for more than two years in the same grade and pay scale as those of the posts advertised and it is not disputed that he possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post. The others who had been appointed with him vide Anncxure-4 and in respect of whom the Commission has been 'consulted would be entitled to take advantage of the said provisions of Sub-article (3) of Article 211 of the Statutes, whereas, the petitioner will be deprived of that benefit merely because of the fact that University has not consulted the Commission in respect of him. There can be no reasonable difference between the initial dates of appointments of the petitioner and the others and the duty and obligation on the part of the University to consult the Commission with respect to temporary lecturers who were to continue as such for a period beyond six months, the obligation arose in view of the provisions contained in the provision to Sub-section 6(b) of Section 15 of the Act which Is as follows:- "(6). Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding Subsections, but always subject to the other provisions of this Act- (a) x x x x x x x x x x (b) when appointment to a post of teacher or officers of the University is made otherwise than by promotion or transfer from another service Including the service of the University, it shall not be necessary• to consult the Commission if the appointment is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot be delayed without detriment to the interest of the departments or institutions maintained by the University or the colleges transferred to it under Section 57. Provided that if it is proposed to retain the persons as appointed in the same post for a period exceeding six months or to appoint him to another post in the service of the University, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted". 6. The petitioner and Sarkar and some others were continued for more than six months as temporary lecturers without the concurrence of the Commission but in the case of Sarkar and the said other, consultations for permanent absorption in terms of Article 211 (3) were made but not in the case of the petitioner, although he too had at the relevant time already put in more than two years of service as a temporary lecturer in the same grade and scale of pay as those of the posts advertised. The provisions of Article 211 (3) have to be read with the above provisions of Section 15 (6) of the Act. For failure on the part of University to comply with the obligatory provisions of the said Sub-rule (6), the petitioner cannot be allowed to be discriminated when the others who too had put in more than two years of service have been allowed to benefit of Article 211 (3). For failure on the part of University to comply with the obligatory provisions of the said Sub-rule (6), the petitioner cannot be allowed to be discriminated when the others who too had put in more than two years of service have been allowed to benefit of Article 211 (3). The minimum period prescribed under Article 211 (3) being two years of continuous temporary service, all those who had put in two years or more or such service and in respect of whom concurrence of the Commission had not been obtained at an earlier stage should have been treated alike and the Commission should have been consulted in respect of all of them at the same time the classification made by the University by which the petitioner was isolated from the said others for a differential and unfavourable treatment was certainly not reasonable as it had no rational basis in the context of the provisions of Article 211 (3) of the Statutes. In the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner against the treatment meted out to him appears to be genuine: and valid. Accordingly, It is hereby directed that the respondents shall not fill one of the seven permanent posts of lecturers in Botany advertised by the Commission, without considering the claim of the petitioner for permanent absorption to that post under Article 211(3) of the Statutes, after consulting the Commission. It is not necessary to quash the advertisement (Annexure-9). The petition is allowed in part accordingly, There will be no ORDER :for costs. CH. SIA SARAN SINHA, J. I agree. Application allowed.