Judgment B. C. Basak, CJ. 1. These two writ petitions form part of a series of writ petitions in which the question of demotion of certain teachers from the post of Readers is involved. There Universities were, involved, viz. , Patna, Magadh and Bhagalpur Universities. All these petitions were heard together. We have already delivered a detailed judgment dealing with all the points raised in respect of the teachers of the Patna University. Following the same, in the case of Magadh University, we have passed similar orders. 2. In these two writ cases, which involve the teachers of Bhagalpur university, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the teachers of Patna University were adopted and some additional submissions were made. So far as the Commission is concerned, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel, took up the same stand but a new case was sought to be made out by the Chairman and the Secretary in their depositions. On behalf of the University, the learned advocate had chosen to take up a new stand which was not taken on behalf of the other universities. 3. We shall first deal with the facts regarding different petitions and the petitioners. (a) In C. W. J. C. No.2867 of 1993 there are altogether 27 petitioners. They belong to different departments. The petitioners were promoted as Readers under the Time Bound promotion scheme after the approval of the Screening Committee. Their cases were forwarded to the Commission for concurrence for appointment as Readers on permanent basis. In respect of petitioner Nos.3, 8, 12 and 18, consence was given by the commission after a long time in August/september, 1992. However, no notification following the same was issued by the University. In respect of petitioners after they were given provisional promotion Readers under time bound promotion scheme on different dates starting from the year 1985, the commission express their inability to give their concurrence which was communicated to the University in the year 1993. (b) In C. W. J. C. No.3123 of 1993 the sole petitioner was similarly appointed as Reader on temporary basis but the concurrence has not been given by the Commission for bis substantive appointment. 4. In this case after adopting the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners in the Patna University cases Mr. (b) In C. W. J. C. No.3123 of 1993 the sole petitioner was similarly appointed as Reader on temporary basis but the concurrence has not been given by the Commission for bis substantive appointment. 4. In this case after adopting the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners in the Patna University cases Mr. Ghose appearing for the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.2867 of 1993 has made some additional submissions to the following effect. He has submitted that the scheme regarding promotion would not apply as his clients were absorbed in regular service. In this context he has referred to Annexure-6 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. Referring to sections 57 and 58 of the Bihar University Act, it was further submitted that the question of such concurrence would apply in respect of appointments only and promotion is not an appointment. Accordingly, it was submitted that the question of any recommendation of the Commission cannot and does not arise. 5. Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the Commission has submitted that in respect of the 4 petitioners, in respect of whom concurrence was given to such appointment on permanent basis by Commission in respect of the post of Reader, his argument is the same as it was made in the Patna university case and he did not want to make any separate argument in this case so far as these four petitioners are concerned. So far as other cases, where no such concurrence was given, he has relied on similar submissions that such promotion was not given in view of the defect in the composition of the screening committee so far as experts are concerned. However, he has made it clear that though the Commission has expressed its inability, it did not have a closed mind and it is ready and willing to consider the case of confirmation of these Readers afresh. It may be pointed out that though in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission in C. W. J. C. No.2867/93 reliance was placed on a chart "showing the ground for rejection" (Annexure B-I), Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the Commission at the very outset had, in his usual fairness, pointed out that Annexure B-l was merely a chart and it was not based on any document as such. Chatterjee, appearing for the Commission at the very outset had, in his usual fairness, pointed out that Annexure B-l was merely a chart and it was not based on any document as such. In this context it may be pointed out that the Chairman of the Commission in his evidence has denied any knowledge of the affidavit affirmed by the secretary either before or after it has been affirmed, though the Secretary in his evidence contradicted the same by saying that it was approved by the Chairman. 6. In this case the affidavit was filed on behalf of the University at a quite late stage on 5-4-93, after in the Patna University case the documents of the Commission including the resolution dated 10-2-93 which was described as a comprehension resolution regarding an warranti were produced and the vague and laconic language express therein were commented uopn. However, Mr. Basudeva Prasad, appearing on behalf of the Bhagalpur university, has taken a different stand on behalf of the University I may point out that his argument was made after we have heard all other cases and all the records of the Commission were produced including that of Bbagalpur University and when the general position had become clear. His main contention, which was a departure from the contentions made on behalf of the other Universities, wag that the Commission is merely a recommending body and even though in respect of the 4 petitioners, referred to above, concurrence was given by the Commission, the University was not bound to follow the same and the University can ignore the same. It had done so in the present case and it cannot be compelled to give effect to the concurrence given by the Commission. Mr. Basudeva Prasad argued that the University has acted illegally since 1987 when these petitioners were appointed provisionally to the post of Reader. He has submitted that the screening committee was wrongly constituted by the then Vice-Chancellor. He has also submitted that the commission has acted illegally by giving such concurrence. 7. Mr. Basudeva Prasad argued that the University has acted illegally since 1987 when these petitioners were appointed provisionally to the post of Reader. He has submitted that the screening committee was wrongly constituted by the then Vice-Chancellor. He has also submitted that the commission has acted illegally by giving such concurrence. 7. During the course of hearing, the Vice-Chancellor of the Bhagalpur university made a statement before us on 7-4-1993 which was recorded in the order sheet: - "the Commission at certain point of time called for certain information from the university regarding provisional appointment of Readers amongst other information but at no point of time the Commission has ever pointed out to the University about any alleged discrepancy in the composition of the Screening committee or called upon the University to explain such discrepancy. " However, while being examined by the Court on 8-4-1993 he stated that he affirmed the said statement made before "with correction". The correction" as suggested was as follows : "the correction is that we received the recommendation for rejection and acceptance, We formed a committee of senior teachers and the officers to examine. So I constituted a committee to go into details as to why these names have been rejected. The order was passed on 27-1-1993. In the meeting on 14-2-1993 it was found that there were certain discrepancies in the recommendation. On account of one expert being present certain names were dropped. Then certain papers were demanded by the Commission from the University. There were 27 such cases. Seven cases were also rejected and then i passed this information to the Chancellor before issuing the notification. On 23-2-1993 I asked the Registrar to issue notification that the lecturers names were not recommended by the Commission. This letter that the Commission is saying came on 1-3-1993 about the cases that were formally recommended by the commission. There were discrepancies. In some cases one expert was present. We have already taken action in January-February itself and passed the information to the Chancellor. After that we got this letter from the commission that these names were recommended The names sent by the Commission were not notified by the University. We have applied our mind.1 have taken the advice of the financial Adviser and he advised that a committee of the autherities of the University is going to be consulted. After that we got this letter from the commission that these names were recommended The names sent by the Commission were not notified by the University. We have applied our mind.1 have taken the advice of the financial Adviser and he advised that a committee of the autherities of the University is going to be consulted. Only out of 61 cases which were formally recommended by the Cornmission, in two cases we issued the notification " 8. Regarding the so-called "correction" he has admitted that this was not made out in the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the University. He has further stated that in spite of the concurrence given by the Commission in respect of the 4 petitioners, the Bhagalpur University did not implement the same "on the basis of application of mind". He has put the blame on the earlier screening committee and the earlier Vicechancellor about everything. However, he had stated that he was appointed as Vice-Chaocellor on 26-6-1990. He admitted that the papers relating to confirmation of thepetitioners were sent by the University to the Commission during his time, that is, in October/november/decemher, 1991, according to him, these papers were scrutinised by the earlier screening committee. According to him, when he took over charge as the Vice-Chancellor there was greater pressure to hold another screening committee meeting. He added - "so within six to eight months of my scrutiny I sent all the papers". All the papers were sent to Commission for the purpose of its recommendation and the University did not find any lapses in this connection at that time. His explanation is that it was done by the earlier screening committee and he was advised by the earlier screening committee. He admitted that before the papers were sent he did not make any examination of these papers but be forwarded without the scrutiny after the Commission had made recommendations regarding some of the petitioners, He could not produce any record of the University in support of the case sought to be made out by him at the late stage. He has admitted that he has not produce the record showing that any such reason was recorded by the University for non-compliance of Commissions recommendation regarding the concurrence given in respect of these four petitioners. He has admitted that he has not produce the record showing that any such reason was recorded by the University for non-compliance of Commissions recommendation regarding the concurrence given in respect of these four petitioners. He has submitted that though the concurrence was received in August/september, 1992, in respect of these 4 petitioners, the University did not act on the basis of the same and no record could be produced in support of the same. He also admits that the case sought to be made out by him now, was not made out in the counter-affidavit filed by the University. His explanation was that he waited according to the advice of the financial Adviser that a committee will be constituted and the matter will be settled by the Syndicate. However, the admitted position is that in one of the Universities in Bihar there is any Syndicate. He has also admitted the same regarding Bhagalpur University. He has not been able to produce any fine to substantiate this reason put forward by him for non-compliance of the Commissions recommendation. 9. So far as the additional contention raised by Mr. Chose is concerned, i am unable to accept such additional contention made by him because such regularisation in service does not dispense with the provision for confirmation by the Commission. I am also unable to accept the contention that this is a case of appointment and not a case of promotion and therefore, the question of concurrence does not arise. It may be pointed out that the orders of the University, by which the petitioners were provisionally appointed as Reader, itself makes it clear that such appointments were on provisional basis and subject to confirmation by the commission. It is too late in the day to raise the question that no such confirmation or concurrence of the Commission was necessary. 10. So far as the arguments of Mr. Basudeva Prasad is concerned, i am unable to accept such contention. This is an argument in extremes, i am unable to hold that the recommendation of the Commission was not binding on the University. The Commission has been set up under the act and it will amount to a farce if it is held that the Universities shall be totally free to follow or not to follow, on its own sweet will, the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission has been set up under the act and it will amount to a farce if it is held that the Universities shall be totally free to follow or not to follow, on its own sweet will, the recommendation of the Commission. In view of the said statute setting up the commission, the recommendation of the Commission is binding on the university. In any event, the case sought to be made out during his submissions and the evidence of the Vice-Chancellor was not made out in the counter-affidavit filed by the University. 11. I am unable to rely on Annexure-B-1 in view of the fact that the chairman himself has stated with reference to this Annexnre-B-1 that he had not seen it before and that he was not in a position to say that these reasons were placed before the Commission at any point of time. So far as noting file is concerned, the Secretary stated that page 11 of the note sheet is the only resolution regarding the decision regarding Bhagalpur university. This cannot be as this note sheet (at p.14) is dated 14-8-1992 and this is to the following effect : 11_347_BLJ2_1993.htm This cannot be because this is dated 14-8-1992 whereas their admitted case is that such decision was taken by a single composite resolution dated 10-2-93. Further this page 11 refers to Readers in English subject of the Bhagalpur University, whereas all the petitioners excepting petitioner Nos.1, 7 and 11 belong to Departments other than English. Further there is nothing in page 11 of the note sheet which connects the same with the petitioners herein. 12 Accordingly we are unable to accept the contentions raised and explanations offered on behalf of the University. We are also unable to accept the case right to be made as and the correctness of the chart B-l of the counter-affidavit of the commission. In any event we reject the contentions raised on the basis of the same for the reasons given in our judgment regarding Patna University. 13. For the reasons given in our judgment in Patna and Magadh universities cases, so far as the persons in respect of whom the concurrence was earlier given, I hold that such withdrawal of concurrence by the commission was without jurisdiction. In such cases the University was bound by the same and the University was bound to notify the confirmation. 13. For the reasons given in our judgment in Patna and Magadh universities cases, so far as the persons in respect of whom the concurrence was earlier given, I hold that such withdrawal of concurrence by the commission was without jurisdiction. In such cases the University was bound by the same and the University was bound to notify the confirmation. The University is directed to issue notifications within a fortnight in terms of the concurrence given in respect of petitioner Nos.3, 8, 12 and 18 in the posts of Readers of Bhagalpur University. So far as other petitioners are concerned, in respect of whom no such concurrence has been given by the commission, I quash the decision of the Commission not granting such concurrence as it was only on the ground of some alleged discrepancy in the composition of the screening committee Their decision regarding not granting any concurrence on that ground is set aside. They are directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and give a fresh decision within 31st of May, 1993 after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause. However, it shall not be open to the Commission to refuse such concurrence, on the ground of any alleged irregularity regarding the composition of the screening committee. The grounds for their decision, if concurrence is not given, must be set out in the order to be passed ultimately. If the Commission fails to take and communicate such decision within the period specified above, then after the expiry of such period, the Commission will be deemed to have given concurrence to such confirmation with effect from the date they were provisionally appointed as Reader. Till such decision is taken, those petitioners, who have been provisionally holding such post of Reader/professor, will continue to hold such posts. In the result, these writ applications are allowed to the extent indicated above but there will be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.