JUDGMENT S.N. JHA, J. The dispute in this case relates to the effective date of petitioner's promotion as Reader under the ten years time bound promotion scheme. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notification. G.A. 254/2002 dated 23.7.2002 contained in Annexure - 22 to the writ petition whereby the effective date of his promotion has been shifted from 22.7.88 to 26.12.90. 2. It may be mentioned that earlier too on 13.12.95 on receipt of the recommendation of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission the petitioner was allowed promotion as Reader under the ten years time bound promotion scheme with effect from 26.12.90 against which he had filed representation, and within two days of the notification the University referred his case to the Commission for re-consideration. On receipt of the revised recommendation from the Commission his promotion was made effective from 22.7.88 vide notification no. G.A. 94/96 dated 5/7.7.96. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in Physics on 22.7.78 in the Bhagalpur Evening College, as the college was then known, (now Bihar National College, Bhagalpur). On 7.8.80 the college was allowed affiliation by the State Government from the session 1977-78. On 4.11.80, vide Annexure -1, the Inspector of Colleges, Bhagalpur University requested the State Government in the Bihar Education Department to sanction posts of Lecturers from the session 1978 - 79 when the I.Sc. teaching commenced. On 26.12.80, vide Annexure 2, the State Government communicated creation of 7 posts of Lecturers including two in Physics. On 28.12.80, vide Annexure - 3, he along with others was absorbed by the Governing Body of the college with effect from the date of the affiliation of the Science Faculty in I.Sc. i.e. with effect from the date of first appointment. 4. The petitioner’s case of absorption with effect from 22.7.78 does not appear to be correct. In course of hearing attention of the Court was drawn to the findings of the three member committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University to resolve the dispute relating to the effective date of the petitioner's time bound promotion. The report of the committee contained reference to resolution of the Governing Body dated 3.9.80 by which additional posts were created in anticipation of the approval of the Government and the petitioner was appointed on the second post. The report of the committee contained reference to resolution of the Governing Body dated 3.9.80 by which additional posts were created in anticipation of the approval of the Government and the petitioner was appointed on the second post. Counsel for the University was directed to produce copy of said resolution dated 3.9.80. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the resolution dated 3.9.80 as under: " Agenda: 3-To make appointment of lecturers and Lab. In-charge in the Feculty of Science. Considered the agenda and five part time posts created vide Res. NO.8 dated 22.8.77 one each in physics, Chemistry, Zoology, and Botany Mathematics are upgraded to whole - time posts. Further two posts one each in Physics and Chemistry and one each in Mathematics, Zoology and Botany have been created on the basis of University's Letter No. BI 18562 dated 6/7.8.80 to the Government of Bihar (Education Departmkent). The Governing Body interviewed candidates for the post of Lecturers in different subjects in the Science Faculty as advertised in the Indian Nation dated 27.8.80. The criteria adopted for the appointment of lecturers is as follows :- "Eighty marks were allotted for consistently good academic records from Matriculation onwards, teaching and Research experience as well as twenty extra-curricular activities and marks for interview and personality test." Out of the panels of its recommended candidates, the following were selected for appointment as per criteria laid down. Subject SI. Name Points Remarks No. Physics 1 Sri 49 Working Narendra since 26.6.77 Nr.Mishra " 2 Sri Keshri 48 Working Nr.Mishra since 22.7.78 Kr. Singh " 3. Sri Ram 37 Working Dahin Roy Feb, 79 Chemistry .. .. .. (emphasis by me) 5. It is clear from the above resolution of the Governing Body that while making five part-time posts of lecturer created earlier under resolution no. 8 dated 22.8.77 (including one in Physics) whole - time posts, two posts-one each in Physics and Chemist y- were created on 3.9.80. There was, thus, no second post in existence prior to 3.9.80. There is no dispute that one Narendra Nr. Mishra (mentioned in the above chart) who was working in the college since 26.6.77, was appointed on the first post. The petitioner started working since 22.7.78. If the petitioner, as indeed others, whose names find mention in the resolution dated 3.9.80, were appointed after interview etc. There is no dispute that one Narendra Nr. Mishra (mentioned in the above chart) who was working in the college since 26.6.77, was appointed on the first post. The petitioner started working since 22.7.78. If the petitioner, as indeed others, whose names find mention in the resolution dated 3.9.80, were appointed after interview etc. only on 3.9.80, his claim to treat his date of appointment effective from 22.7.78 for the purpose of time - bound promotion does not appear to have any substance. 6. At this stage it may be mentioned that when the fact that the second post itself was created on 3.9.80 was brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner he placed reliance on letter no. 537 dated 18.2.79 of the Education Department (at page 30 of Part III of the Encyclopaedia of University Laws of Bihar published by the Malhotra Books). It appears that the Government made certain clarification regarding creation of posts, besides other matters as referred to therein, by the said letter Para 3 of the letter deals with the creation of posts. It consists of four clauses. Clause (Ka) provides that posts created by the Governing Body and approved by the University prior to 7.5.74 shall be treated as duly created posts. Clause (Kha) provides that the posts created after 7.5.74 but not approved by the State Government will not be treated as duly created posts. Clause (Ga) provides that such posts which have not been approved by the University or the State Government but against which appointments have already been made on the recommendation of the University Service Commission after advertising the posts they too will be treated as duly created posts because there is no other option. However, if the Commission has given its temporary concurrence without creation of post, it shall not be treated as duly created. Clause (Gha) provides that effective date of creation of the post will be the date of order unless any other date is mentioned in the order of approval of the University or the State Government. I fail to understand as to how the said letter can be of any help to the petitioner. Clause (Gha) provides that effective date of creation of the post will be the date of order unless any other date is mentioned in the order of approval of the University or the State Government. I fail to understand as to how the said letter can be of any help to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, in terms of clause (Gha ) the effective date of creation of the post has to be treated as 3.9.80 when the post was created since it does not mention that creation of post was from any earlier date. It is true that in the order dated 28.12.80, Annexure-3, it was stated that the absorption was effective from the date of affiliation i.e. with effect from the date of first appointment, but as there was no post in existence on the date of first appointment i.e. 22.7.78 until 3.9.80, the appointment could not relate back to 22.7.78. Indeed, after the second post was created, the petitioner was appointed on the basis of marks secured by him, on 3.9.80, as seen above. 7. It is relevant to mention here that all the seven appointees were appointed pursuant to the sanction of posts by the State Government vide letter dated 26.12.80 have been allowed time bound promotion with effect from 26.12.90 on completion of ten years reckoned from that date. The claim of the petitioner that in his case the effective date of promotion should be effective from 26.12.90 or any other date cannot be accepted, for, others including Narendra Nr. Mishra (appointed on the first post) having been allowed time bound promotion from 26.12.90, there can be no justification to make the petitioner's promotion effective from 22.7.88. At one stage I considered the desirability of directing the University to consider making the promotion effective from 3.9.90 treating the petitioner's appointment as lecturer effective from 3.9.80 but considering that all others have got the promotion from 26.12.90 against which none else has any grievance, I decided not to do so. 8. In the above premises, it has to be held that notifications dated 13.12.95 and 23.7.2002 allowing time bound promotion does not suffer from any error. Further, the notification dated 5/7.7.96 allowing promotion with effect from 22.7.88 on the basis of revised recommendation of the Commission the revised recommendation came on reference by the University vide letter dated 15.12.95. 8. In the above premises, it has to be held that notifications dated 13.12.95 and 23.7.2002 allowing time bound promotion does not suffer from any error. Further, the notification dated 5/7.7.96 allowing promotion with effect from 22.7.88 on the basis of revised recommendation of the Commission the revised recommendation came on reference by the University vide letter dated 15.12.95. This was pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate dated 11.11.75. The notification regarding petitioner's promotion having been issued on 13.12.95 it is not understandable as to how a month earlier on 11.12.95 the Syndicate resolved to recommend the petitioner's case to the Commission for re-consideration. Counsel for the University pointed out in this connection that the said letter, dated 15.12.95, seeking reconsideration did not contain the relevant details such as recommendation of the Screening Committee or the date on which the post was sanctioned. Thus, on incomplete materials the Commission revised its recommendation. For this reason too, the notification dated 5/7/7/96 allowing promotion with effect from 22.7.88 cannot be said to be correct. 9. Before I close the discussion, I may notice the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that once the Commission decided the effective date of promotion the University could not make any alteration without reference to the Commission - as is the stand of the Commission in its counter affidavit. This submission, in my opinion, has only academic value. Having gone into the factual aspects and merit of the case it would be futile to ask the Commission to consider the case of the petitioner as to the affective date of his promotion as Reader. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 11. Copy of the resolution of the Governing Body dated 3.9.80 (supra) may be kept on the record.