Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who retired as Professor on 31.10.2000, is before this Court with a complain that the respondent University through Vice Chancellor has passed an illegal order in observing that the petitioners promotion as Professor was illegal and as such, he was not entitled to pension and other retiral benefits on the basis that he retired as Professor. 3. The short facts of the case are that on 25.9.1961, the petitioner joined as Demonstrator or so. On 11,2,1975 he was promoted as Lecturer. It is to be seen that two different streams of promotion came into move. One was time bound promotion while the other was merit promotion. Under the scheme of time bound promotion, the petitioner was given his first time bound promotion with effect from 11.2.1985. The matter was sent to the University Service Commission (in short Commission) for its concurrence. The Commission gave its concurrence and thereafter the University vide its notification no. G.A. 25/1995 gave promotion to the petitioner with effect from 11.2.1985. it also appears from the record that in the merit promotion, the petitioner was considered and he was promoted with effect from 22.12.1987. in the time bound promotion so also merit promotion he was made lecturer with effect from different dates. The date that is 22.12.1987 was concurred by the Commission. Thereafter, the University made a proposal that the date of merit promotion i.e. 22.12.1987 be shifted to 22.12.1986. Unfortunately, the said proposal was not referred to the Commission for its concurrence on the subject of shifting of the date. It appears that the matter remained in suspension and thereafter with effect from 11.2.1993, the petitioner under the merit scheme was promoted as Professor. The University referred the matter to the Commission but the Commission observed that as the date was shifted from 22.12.1987 to 22.12.1986 and the petitioner would be competing his eight years with effect from 22.12.1994, he would be entitled to promotion with effect from 22.12.1994. 4. On an earlier occasion, the matter had come to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1445 of 1991 by order dated 31.3.2003 observed that the petitioner would be free to make a representation in respect of his claim. 4. On an earlier occasion, the matter had come to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1445 of 1991 by order dated 31.3.2003 observed that the petitioner would be free to make a representation in respect of his claim. The petitioner, it appears, thereafter did not do any thing further in the matter relating to the effective date of his promotion as Professor that is 11.2.1993 or 22.12.1994. It appears that the petitioner surrendered to the fate accepting that his promotion would be from 22.12.1994. 5. The petitioner when asked the authority to decide his case for payment of retiral benefits and fixation of pension, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent Tiika Manjhi Bhagaipur University, the University by its order dated 24.5.2004 observed that the petitioner could not get benefits of both the promotional streams. It was also observed that in the year 1985 if the petitioner was given benefit of time bound promotion then the other orders passed in his favour were wrong and in any case when the recommendations of the University to shift the date from 22.12.1987 to 22.12.1986 were not referred to the Commission, the petitioner could not be promoted as Professor because the effective date could be 22.12.1987 and the petitioner would have completed eight years on 22.12.1995, that is, much beyond the cut off date as provided under the merit promotion. 6. I have heard the parties at length, It appears that the total confusion crept in the matter because after giving time bound promotion to the petitioner his case was considered under the merit promotion. The authorities who considered his case for merit promotion did not appreciate that in time bound promotion the length of service was the only criterion while in merit promotion a number of other things were required to be considered. True it is that the Commission had given concurrence to the time bound promotion of the petitioner but the respondents are absolutely justified in saying that in case of merit promotion concurrence of the Commission is a must. 7. In the present matter the University granted merit promotion to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.1987 and concurrence was given by the Commission. 7. In the present matter the University granted merit promotion to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.1987 and concurrence was given by the Commission. If that is taken to be the final date then the petitioner would complete eight years on 22.12.1995 and that would certainly be much beyond the cut off date of promotion that is 22.9.1994. If the recommendation made by the University to the Commission are accepted and his date is shifted to 22.12.1986 then the petitioners promotion would become effective with effect from 22.12.1994 and that would be much before the cut off date of the promotion. 8. The respondents though prima facie appears to be justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner but on a deeper probe i must observe that on misconception of law the respondent University has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The. respondent University is hereby directed to refer the recommendation of shifting the date to the Commission within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order then further, after the period of four months from the date of receipt of recommendation, the Commission shall pass a speaking order on the same. If the Commission gives its concurrence to the shifting of the date and in fact it is so, then the University shall reconsider the entire matter and refix the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner. If the Commission on the other hand does not concede to the recommendation of the University and does not agree to the shifting of the date then the Commission would be required to pass a speaking order. The petitioner if he is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commission, would be free to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the same before appropriate forum in a proper proceeding. 9. This application is accordingly disposed of.