JUDGMENT The petitioner who was earlier granted time bound promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader with effect from Ist December. 1986 by order dated 1st April, 1990, by impugned decision dated 16th January, 1997 (Annexure-12), the Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission (for short 'Commission') reviewed the same and shifted forward such date of promotion to 19th March, 1992. The consequential Notification was issued on 14th May, 1997 (Annexure-17) by Respondent-Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University ('University' for short), shifting forward such date of promotion and ordered to make appropriate recovery of excess amount from the salary of the petitioner. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, the present writ petition was preferred against the impugned decision dated 16th January, 1997 (Annexure-12) and notification dated 14th May, 1997 (Annexure-17). 2. The admitted fact shows that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1st December, 1976 as principal in one Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar. He obtained degree in Sanskrit in 1977 and then passed Acharya Examination in Vyakaran in the year 1980. The post of Lecturer was advertised by the University in the newspaper ‘ARYABART' on 21st January, 1981, in pursuance of which the petitioner was selected and on re-commendation he was appointed as Lecturer (Sahitya & Alankar), vide order dated 15th February, 1982. He resigned from Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar on 18th March, 1982 and joined the post of Lecturer under the University on 19th April, 1982. Subsequently, the petitioner was awarded with Ph.D. Degree in 1985. 3. His Excellency the Chancellor framed an amended statute on 24th December, 1986 laying down scheme of time bound promotion with respect to teachers of Constituent Colleges. It was laid down therein that a teacher having requisite qualification and who has completed at feast ten years of continuous service as a Lecturer in one or more University will be eligible for time hound promotion to the next higher post. Several persons\year granted such promotion including the petitioner. By a notification dated 1st April, 1990 (Annexure-9), the petitioner was granted time bound promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader on temporary basis with effect from Ist December. 1986, in anticipation of approval of the commission. The period of service rendered by the petitioner as teacher in Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar was counted for the purpose of computing the period of ten years of continuous service. 4. 1986, in anticipation of approval of the commission. The period of service rendered by the petitioner as teacher in Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar was counted for the purpose of computing the period of ten years of continuous service. 4. When the matter was referred to the Commission, it approved the time hound promotion of petitioner with effect from 1st December, 1986 by Commission's letter dated 7th August, 1996 (Annexure-11). However, after about few months, without notice to the petitioner and the University, the Commission reviewed his earlier decision and shifted forward the date of time hound promotion of petitioner to 19th March, 1992, communicated vide impugned letter dated 16th January, 1997 (Annexure-12). 5. When the matter came to the notice of the University, the Syndicate of the University vide its meeting dated 3rd September, 1997 decided to inform the Commission to reconsider the matter in the light of statute laying down scheme of time bound promotion, wherein the provision of "one or more Universities" has been laid down. There-by, it did not concur with the decision of the Commission. The University by letter dated 13th May, 1997 referred the matter to reconsider but on the next date, on 14th May, 1997 (vide Annexure-17), shifted forward the date of promotion to 19th March,1992 from earlier date of 1st December, 1986 and ordered to make recovery of excess amount by Notification dated 2nd August, 1997 (Annexure-20). 6. From the pleadings made by the parties and submissions made on he half of the Commission, it is clear that the service rendered by the petitioner from 1st December, 1976 to 18th march, 1982 in Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar, which was earlier counted to determine ten years of continuous service, was deleted when the Commission reviewed the matter in January, 1997 and the petitioner was treated to be in continuous service with effect from 18th March, 1982 and so the ten years' period of completion was shown as 19th March, 1992 to which date of promotion was forwarded. While the stand or the University was Similar to the stand made on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel submitted that they had to issue the notification view of the decision of Commission which was the recommending body. While the stand or the University was Similar to the stand made on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel submitted that they had to issue the notification view of the decision of Commission which was the recommending body. The stand of the Commission was that the period of service rendered by petitioner in Rishi Sanskrit College, Haridwar cannot be counted as the said service was under a different University. When the relevant provision of the Staute dated 24th December, 1986 (Annexure-8) was brought to the notice of the counsel for the Commission, it was submitted that one or more Universities mentioned in the said Statute means anyone or other University' under the State of Bihar and not a University situtated outside the State of Bihar. Reference was made by the counsel to the definition of University, as laid down under section 2(y), which is to he read with section 3 of the Bihar State Universities Act. 1976. 7. The counsel for the petitioner did not agree with the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the Commission. According to him the meaning of the Statute is to he given on the basis of words and expressions laid down therein and it cannot be inconsistent with the other provisions or other Statutes. Reliance was placed on another Statute framed by His Excellency Chancellor on 14th September, 1992 (Annexure- 16), laying down scheme for time bound promotion with respect to teachers of 'affiliated college'. It was so placed to show the difference between the two Statutes relating to time hound promotion, one for the teachers of 'Affiliated Colleges'. 8. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on Supreme Court decisions in the case of Sharadendu Bhushan, reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 335 and in the case of Banaras Hindu university and another Vs. Indra Pratap Singh, reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 780 . 9. Before deciding the issue it is better to deal with the relevant provisions of one or other Statute, as discussed hereunder. It was at the instance of the University Grants Commission, the scheme of time bound promotion was framed by His Excellency Chancellor, approved under, section 5(2) of the Bihar Inter-University Board Act, 1981. 9. Before deciding the issue it is better to deal with the relevant provisions of one or other Statute, as discussed hereunder. It was at the instance of the University Grants Commission, the scheme of time bound promotion was framed by His Excellency Chancellor, approved under, section 5(2) of the Bihar Inter-University Board Act, 1981. While such Statute laying down scheme of time hound promotion with respect to teachers of Constitutent Colleges was approved on 24th December, 1986 (Annexure-8), it was so approved with respect to the teachers of affiliated Colleges on 14th September, 1992 (Annexure-l 6). The relevant provisions for teachers of Constituent Colleges, like petitioner, as approved on 24th December, 1986, lays down the following conditions:- STATUTE FOR TIME BOUND PROMOTION OF LECTURERS TO THE POSTS OF READERS AND FOR READERS TO THE POST OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS. (DATED 24.12.86) 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as contained in the Statutes; it is hereby provided that :- (1) A Lecturer, serving in a University Department or in a Degree College managed and maintained by the University shall on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, be promoted on the basis of time bound scheme to the post of Reader, subject to the following conditions: - (a) That he holds the qualification as prescribed for the post of lecturer under the Statute enforced at the time of his appointment as lecturer and has fit/filled the conditions, if any, attached thereto as laid down in the Statute: (b) that, he holds substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer; and (c) that, he has completed at least ten years of continuous service as lecturer in one or more Universities: Provided that the service rendered in a degree college during the period the college was not affiliated in the subject concerned even up to the Intermediate standard, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of the stature: Providing that the service rendered in more than one University shall be deemed to be continuous if the period elapsed between leaving the service of a University and joining the service of another University does not exceed the normal joining time as prescribed in the service statute. On the other hand, such provision laid down for teachers of affiliated Colleges approved on 14th September, 1992 (Annexure-16) while lays down almost similar criteria, there is a substantial change in the language of the relevant portion relating to ten years of continuous service. The relevant portion reads, as follows: STATUTE FOR TIME BOUND PROMOTION OF LECTURERS TO THE POST OF READERS AND PROMOTION OF READERS TO THE POSTS OF UNNERSITY PROFESSORS OF AFFILIATED COLLEGE IN-CLUDING RELIGIOUS AND LINGUSTIC MINORTIY COLLEGE. (DATED 14.9.1992). "1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as contained in the Statute, it is hereby provided that- (1) A lecturer; serving ill an affiliated college (which includes colleges established and managed by religious and linguistic minority) managed and maintained by the Governing Body, shall on the recommendation of the Bihar Colleges Service Commission be promoted on the subject to the following conditions :- (a) That, he holds the qualification as prescribed for the post of Lecturer under the Statute enforced at the time of his appointment as Lecturer and has fulfilled the conditions, if any, attached thereto as laid down in the Stature; (b) That be holds substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer: and (c) That, he has complete at least ten years of continuous service was Lecturer in one or more Universities within the state of Bihar Provided that the service rendered in a degree college during Provided further that the service rendered in more than one University within the State of Bihar shall be deemed to be continuous if the period elapsed between leaving the service of a University and joining the service of another University does not exceed the normal joining time as prescribed in the service Statute.” 10. If the relevant portions of the aforesaid two Schemes are compared it will be evident that while at least ten years of continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities' is required for teachers of Constituent Colleges, ‘at least ten years of continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities within the State of Bihar’, is laid down with respect to the teachers of affiliated college. Thus, it is clear that while for teachers of affiliated college, continuous service in one or more University has been limited to the Universities within the State of Bihar, there is no such limitation laid down with respect to the teachers of constituent college for determination of ten years of continuous service as a Lecturer in one on more Universities. 11. Now, it is a settled law that for interpretation of construction of Statute, while intention of Legislature is required to be seen, when the words of the Statute is clear, plain or unambigious and are resonably susceptible to only one meaning, he Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. 12. Reference of the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Anand Maharaj (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 946) can be made. wherein the Supreme Court held that when the language is plain and unambigious and admits of only on meaning, no question of construction of Statute arises, for the Acts speaks for itself. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Sarup Singh (A.I.R. 1996 S.C.346), held that the object of interpreting a Statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it which is the conventional way of interpreting the Statute. 14. Admittedly, the Statute, in question, has been framed on the basis of Scheme made by the U.G.C. It is also a settled law that the U.G.C. Act and the Regulations framed thereunder being Central Act, has over riding effect on any Act or Statute framed by the State. 15. So far as difinitio of "University" is concerned, the meaning of the same varies from Act to Act and the Statute. For example, while under "Bihar Inter-University Board Act, 1981", there is no definition of University has been laid down. The definition of "University" as laid down under University Grants Commission Act, does not limit it within a State and includes any University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as recognised by the U.G.C. On the other hand, the definition of "University" laid down under one or other State Act is limeted one. While "University" as defined under section 2(y) read with section 3 of Bihar State Universities; Bhagalpur University; Ranchi University; Magadh University etc., the definition of "University" as laid down under the Patna University Act, 1976 only includes Patna University and no other University. 16). Now, if the definition "University" as laid down under the Statute relating to time bound Promotion of Constituent Colleges dated 24th December, 1986 is given in terms with the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 then it will exclude Patna University, though within the State of Bihar. Similarly, if the definition of "University" is given in terms with the definition laid down under the Patna University Act then all the other Universities including Bihar Bhagalpur, Ranchi, Magadh Universities, etc. will he excluded, though they are within the State of Bihar. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that the University, as mentioned in the Statute dated 24th December, 1986 (relating to teachers of University and Constituent Colleges), means any University, irrespective of State, established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and/or any Institution recognised as such by the U.G.C. and does not limit it within the Stale of Bihar. Therefore, this question is answered in favour of the petitioner. 18. In fact, somewhat similar matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Shardendu Bhushan (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 335), wherein the Supreme Court held that teaching experience cannot he limited within a University and includes leaching in other Universities. In the case of Banaras Hindu University Vs. Indra Pratap Singh (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 780), the Supreme Court while dealing the matter of continuous service of a Lecturer shifting job from one University to another, held that the reasonable break in service is to he condoned for the purpose of counting the period of continuous service. This apart, the University Grants Commission also clarified the matter by their letter dated 27th November, 1990, wherein it has been made clear that the 'experience' of a person before appointment as a Lecturer in the University/College is to be counted as qualifying service for placement in senior scale, as will be evident from Patna University's Memo dated 16th January, 1991 (Annexure-26). 19. 19. For the reasons stated above, while I allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned letter dated 16th January, 1997 (Annexure-12); Notification dated 14th May, 1997 (Annexure-17); and Notification dated 2nd August, 1997 (Annuxure-20), so far as it relates to the petitioner. 20. The petitioner will continue to receive salary of the higher post of Reader with effect from 1-12-1986 in terms with earlier Notification dated 1st April, 1990 (Annexure-9), as was approved by the Commission, vide letter dated 7th August, 1996 (Annexure11 ). If any recovery has been made, in the meantime, in pursuance of the impugned orders, he Respondents will refund the same in favour of the petitioner. 21. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.