Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 17th May, 2001 passed by the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder respondent No. 9 has been declared senior to the petitioner. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the facts which have arisen for consideration are as follows: 4. The petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 9 appointed lecturers in the Department of Mathematics, Patna University and they joined the Department on 13-1-1983 and 2-2-1983. After completion of statuary period for promotion to the post of Reader, seven lecturers of the Department of the Mathematics including the petitioner and respondent No. 9 were granted provisional promotion of the post of Readers of Patna University under the Statute regarding merit promotion scheme in anticipation of concurrence of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") and their relevant papers were sent to the Commission on 6-12-1996 for consideration and necessary action. The Commission invited two experts for examination and evaluation of their works and the experts recommended names of four lecturers including respondent No. 9 for promotion as Readers. However, the name of the petitioner was not recommended. The University, accordingly, granted promotion to those lecturers including respondent No. 9 to the post of Readers and it cancelled the provisional promotion as Readers of the petitioner and one Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad granted vide notification dated 18-4-1998 with effect from 19-3-1987 and 13-1-1991, respectively. Respondent No. 9 consequently was promoted as Reader with effect from 2-2-1991. In the meantime, the petitioner and Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad applied jointly vide application dated 22-12-1997 to the Vice-Chancellor, Patna University to refer their cases once again to the Commission for assessment and evaluation of their academic achievements. Their application was forwarded by the University on 3-1-1998 for consideration and pursuant to that, the Commission again invited two experts and the experts after re-evaluation of the works of the petitioner and Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad recommended them for promotion as Readers vide its letter dated 18-4-1998 and the University accordingly, promoted the petitioner and Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad as Readers vide notification dated 25-4-1998 with effect from 13-1-1991 and 19-3-1987, respectively. 5. Bal Gangadhar Prasad recommended them for promotion as Readers vide its letter dated 18-4-1998 and the University accordingly, promoted the petitioner and Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad as Readers vide notification dated 25-4-1998 with effect from 13-1-1991 and 19-3-1987, respectively. 5. The recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the Commission at subsequent stage vide notification dated 18-4-1998 for promotion to the post of Reader under the statutory scheme and consequential notification dated 25-4-1998 promoting the petitioner to the post of Reader by the University gave raise to the dispute which ultimately was raised by respondent No. 9 before the Chancellor giving rise to the impugned order. 6. Mr. Shyam Prasad Mukerjee, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned declaring respondent No. 9 senior to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as that respondent No. 9 had never challenged the notification of the University dated 25-4-1998 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader as per recommendation of the Commission under the statutory scheme. Learned Counsel further submitted that the notification issued by the University dated 25-4-1998 was placed before the Sydincate in its meeting dated 7-8-1998 for its approval and the same was duly approved by the Syndicate on 7-8-1998 but the same was also not challenged by respondent No. 9 before the Chancellor and, therefore, the Chancellor declared respondent No. 9 senior to the petitioner contrary to his prayer and thus, the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 must be held to be wholly jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submitted that on receipt of the concurrence of the Commission, the University issued notification dated 25-4-1998 allowing promotion to the petitioner to the post of Reader with effect from the initial date i.e. 13-1-1991 and as a result of this notification, the petitioner regained his seniority over respondent No. 9 whose date of promotion was fixed with effect from 2-2-1991. He further submitted that in course of time, both the petitioner and respondent No. 9 became ripe for consideration for promotion to the post of Professor under the merit promotion scheme and vide letter dated 28-7-2000 addressed from the Commission to the Vice-Chancellor, names of four teachers were recommended for promotion to the post of Professor whereas name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 2 and that of respondent No. 9 at serial No. 4 and the matter was required to be placed before the Syndicate for his final approval for their promotion to the post of Professors and in that view of the matter, the Chancellor could not have interfered in the matter and declared respondent No. 9 senior to the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents including respondent No. 9 submitted that since the dispute of seniority was raised before the Chancellor, apparently the promotion allowed to the petitioner as Reader was itself questioned as being irregular and contrary to the provisions of the Statute regarding merit promotion to the readers. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that once the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Readers was declined by the Commission, the same could not have been considered again within few months of the Commissions refusal to give concurrence in his case as the same would be contrary to the provisions of Clause (9) of the Statute according to which the case could have been considered only after lapse of two years. 8. From the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that in the Chancellors office, it was found and held that once the Commission had refused the concurrence to the petitioners promotion as Reader, the matter could have been considered not before two years and the concurrence given by the Commission for his promotion as Reader within few months was contrary to Clause (9) of the Statute. 9. The question which now falls for consideration is as to whether the case of the petitioner could have been recommended by the Commission within few months of its refusal and as to whether the action of the University and the Commission would be violative of Clause (9) of the Statute. 10. 9. The question which now falls for consideration is as to whether the case of the petitioner could have been recommended by the Commission within few months of its refusal and as to whether the action of the University and the Commission would be violative of Clause (9) of the Statute. 10. Clause (9) of the Statute reads as follows: "Any teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit promotion in the initial presentation will be eligible to submit his work again only after a lapse of two years." From the admitted facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties, as noticed above, it would appear that the case of the petitioner for promotion under the merit promotion scheme was considered by the Commission. However, the Commission vide its letter dated 12-12-1997 as contained in Annexure-G did not recommend the name of the petitioner for merit promotion to the post of Reader and again the Commission within few months of its earlier refusal vide its letter dated 18-4-1998 recommended names of the petitioner and one Dr. Bal Gangadhar Prasad for promotion to the post of Reader under the statutory scheme contrary to the provisions of Clause (9) of the Statue. Once the case of the petitioner was considered by the Commission and he was not selected for promotion in the initial presentation, he would have been eligible only to submit his works after a lapse of two years. As per Clause (9) of the Statute, the subsequent recommendation of the Commission dated 18-4-1998 and the consequential notification of the University dated 25-4-1998 promoting the petitioner as Reader with effect from 13-1-1991 would be ab initio void and since the very promotion of the petitioner was questioned before the Chancellor, the respondent No. 9 was not required to challenge the notification of the University as contained in Annexure 11 dated 25-4-1998. 11 The case of the respondent No. 9 in this view of the matter, was considered by the Chancellor and he was held to be senior to the petitioner. The impugned order if tested on the touchstone of the provisions of Clause (9) of the Statute, it must be held to be wholly justified and reasonable and thus, requires no interference. In the backdrop of the case, therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mukerjee, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. 12. The impugned order if tested on the touchstone of the provisions of Clause (9) of the Statute, it must be held to be wholly justified and reasonable and thus, requires no interference. In the backdrop of the case, therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mukerjee, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the result, this application is dismissed. No costs.