Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J.-Heard the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 29.1.1994 issued under the signatures of Board of Governors, Regional Institute of Technology (811) Jamshedpur, whereby the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was dropped with the condition that his case for promotion will be considered prospectively. The impugned order dated 29.1.1994 reads as under : Regional Institute of Technology. Jamshedpur Order No. RIT (E)-322/94 Dated 29/1/1994 In accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Governors in its 75th meeting held on 11.12.1993, the departmental proceeding instituted against Dr. M.B. Sarkar, Asstt. Professor of Chemistry, is dropped. The case of his promotion if any, will be prospective after the date of the meeting of Board of Governors i.e., 11.12.1993. By order of the Board of Governors, R.I.T., Jamshedpur. 3. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Assistant Lecturer in Chemistry RIT, Jamshedpur on 5.1.1968 and was promoted as Lecturer in 1971. The petitioner was then promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 5.1.1984. In 1985 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was put under suspension on 1.8.1985. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by filing CWJC. No. 1492/85(R) which was allowed on 14.2.1986 and the suspension was revoked. Inspite of the aforesaid order the petitioner was not paid salary. Then he again moved this Court by filing CWJC. No. 474/87(R). The said writ petition was allowed on 8.2.88 and a direction was issued for payment of salary. It appears that a fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in that departmental proceeding a final order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed in 1989. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed. He then challenged the aforesaid orders by filing CWJC. No. 1011/89(R), which was finally heard on 13.7.1989 and the same was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed. 4. From perusal of the order dated 13.7.1989 passed in CWJC. No. 1011/ 89(R), it appears that the order of punishment was quashed mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority did not take into consideration the chargesheet, show-cause, inquiry report and other relevant documents to form an opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. No. 1011/ 89(R), it appears that the order of punishment was quashed mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority did not take into consideration the chargesheet, show-cause, inquiry report and other relevant documents to form an opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. While allowing the writ petition the respondents were given liberty to pass fresh order in the departmental proceeding. Consequently, the respondents initiated a departmental proceeding on the same charges against the petitioner in 1990 and that proceeding continued till 1994. The respondents issued the impugned order dated 29.1.1994 dropping the departmental proceeding but that was with a rigor that the case of the promotion of the petitioner will be prospective after the date of the meeting of the Board of Directors i.e. 11.12.1993. 5. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly assailed the condition imposed in the said order mainly on the ground that when the charges against him has not been proved and the departmental proceeding was dropped then there was no occasion to put a condition that his case for promotion will be considered prospectively. Learned counsel further submits that many teaching staffs junior to the petitioner have been given promotion to the post of Professor in 198587. Learned counsel also drawn my attention to the circular dated 16.2.1990 issued by the department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar relating to time bound promotion scheme applicable to Techhology Institutions including (RIT). 6. Mr. AX. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that pending departmental proceeding there was no question of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no rule for automatic promotion rather it was only after the recommendation of the competent screening committee. The promotion scheme is always subject to the condition that the case of promotion is recommended by the Bihar State University Service Commission in the case of Universities and on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted by the Institute (RIT). Admittedly the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in 1985 and it was finally dropped in 1994 and the order of suspension was revoked by the order of this Court and also salary was paid pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in two different writ petitions referred to hereinabove. Admittedly the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in 1985 and it was finally dropped in 1994 and the order of suspension was revoked by the order of this Court and also salary was paid pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in two different writ petitions referred to hereinabove. The departmental proceeding was firstly concluded in 1989 by passing an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service in between 1985-89. The respondents ought to have adopted a sealed cover policy so far as the petitioner was concerned, but that admittedly was not adopted by the respondents. In 1989 the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority was normally quashed by this Court. Even from 1989 to 1994 only a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. During that period also the respondents have not adopted the sealed cover policy in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion, that the condition imposed in the impugned order to the effect that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be prospective i.e. after 1994 cannot be sustained in law. 7. The second question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was in fact entitled to be considered for time bound promotion in between 1985 and 1994. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer in 1968 and then promoted to the post of Lecturer in 1971. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in 1984 according to the circular i.e. annexure-5 to the writ petition, annexed by the petitioner in which it is clearly mentioned that from 1.2.1985 a person if completed 16 years of service on the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor will be entitled to time bound promotion to the post of Professor. Applying the said circular the petitioner completed16 years in 2000 as Assistant Professor and in 2000 a right accrued to the petitioner for consideration for time bound promotion to the post of Professor. In 2000, therefore, if the petitioner was in fact in service then his case ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Professor. 8. Applying the said circular the petitioner completed16 years in 2000 as Assistant Professor and in 2000 a right accrued to the petitioner for consideration for time bound promotion to the post of Professor. In 2000, therefore, if the petitioner was in fact in service then his case ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Professor. 8. Taking into consideration all these facts I allow this writ application in part and quash that part of the condition in the impugned order dated 29.1.1984 whereby promotion of the petitioner is sought to be considered prospectively i.e. after the date of meeting of the Board of Governors dated 11.12.1993. If the petitioner in his service period fulfilled the requirements of the circulars dated 16.2.1990, as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for giving him time bound promotion and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.