Judgment Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Pd.Singh JJ. 1. Some times in 1959 University Grant Commission authorised the respondent Patna University to create a post of Lecturer for the purpose of carrying out field excavation in relation to the work associated with the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology of the said University. The academic council of the University on the basis of such authority created the post of Director of Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology. The said post was treated by the academic council of the University as equivalent to a teachers post. The post, as was created, was to continue until approved by the Senate. It appears that Senate did approve creation of the said post, and also expressly held out that the said post shall be treated as a teaching post of the University. 2. In the post of Director, Field Excavation, Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, the respondent no. 9 was appointed. He assumed the charge of the said post on 2nd January, 1975. The services of the respondent no.9 in the post of Director, Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology was confirmed by a decision dated 15th June, 1982 with effect from 2nd April, 1975. The respondent no. 9 was thereupon promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 1st April, 1985 on the basis of time bound promotion policy, as was then adopted by the University. The said promotion was subject to the concurrence of the University Service Commission. On 31st October, 1997 the University Service Commission granted its concurrence to the said promotion. 3. On 8th July, 1980 petitioner was appointed by the University as a Lecturer. Petitioner joined the said post on 9th July, 1980. The appointment of the petitioner was regularized on the recommendation of the University Service Commission, as communicated on 10th February, 1982. Such appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Syndicate of the University on 12th January, 1983. Thereupon on 9th July, 1988 under the merit promotion scheme petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader. 4. On 18th June, 1995 the University decided that the respondent no.9 is senior to the petitioner in the post of Reader. This decision was challenged by filing a writ petition. Thereupon on 9th July, 1988 under the merit promotion scheme petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader. 4. On 18th June, 1995 the University decided that the respondent no.9 is senior to the petitioner in the post of Reader. This decision was challenged by filing a writ petition. The writ court having dismissed the writ petition, the present appeal has been preferred against the order dismissing the writ petition. 5. Before us it was principally contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, writ petitioner, that until such time Patna University Act, 1961 was in force, which was admittedly in force when the respondent no. 9 was appointed as Director, Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, a teaching post could only be filled in on the basis of recommendations of the Bihar Public Service commission. It was contended that no recommendation was made by Bihar Public Service Commission in favour of respondent no. 9 pertaining to his appointment as Director, Field Excavation in the department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology. The learned counsel for the appellant cited before us a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Narayan Jhp vs. Secretary, University Service Commission: reported in 1971 PLJR 246, where it has been held by the Division Bench that to be a teacher the person must be such a person whose appointment at any grade at one time or the other has been concurred in or approved by the University Service Commission and only such person has a right to be considered for promotion. On the strength of the said pronouncement of the Division Bench it was submitted that in as much as the appointment of respondent no. 9 as Director, Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology has not been concurred in or approved by the Bihar Public Service Commission and subsequently, after coming into force of the Patna University Act, 1976, by the University Service Commission, the respondent no. 9 could not be promoted to the post of Reader. It was submitted that if the foundation is gone, the whole structure will tumble down. 6. We have gone through the writ petition. We have not found in the writ petition any challenge thrown to the promotion of the respondent no. 9 could not be promoted to the post of Reader. It was submitted that if the foundation is gone, the whole structure will tumble down. 6. We have gone through the writ petition. We have not found in the writ petition any challenge thrown to the promotion of the respondent no. 9 on the ground that his appointment to the post of Director, Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology had not been concurred in or approved by the Bihar Public Service Commission or by the University Service Commission. On the other hand, it was contended in the writ petition that the post of Director, Field Excavation in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology is a technical post and not a teaching post and, accordingly, a person, who has come from a technical post to a teaching post, must be dealt with in a separate cadre. 7. Be that as it may the promotion accorded to the respondent no. 9 on 1st February, 1985 could not be challenged even collaterally by filing a writ petition as late as in 1997. 8. Furthermore, admittedly on 31st October, 1997 the University Service Commission did concur in and approved the promotion of the respondent no. 9 to the post of Reader. In the judgment of Division Bench, referred to above, the court has observed that concurrence or approval by the University Service Commission may be granted at one time or the other. In the instant case,, admittedly, such concurrence and approval was granted on 31st October, 1997 though pertaining to promotion to the post of Reader but for all practical purposes it must be deemed that while giving such concurrence or approval the very eligibility to be promoted had also been concurred in and approved. 9. In those circumstances, having regard to the fact that the respondent no. 9 was promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 1st February, 1985; whereas the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 9th July, 1988, the appellant is, no doubt, junior to the respondent no. 9 and, accordingly, a pronouncement to that effect made by the University by the order dated 16th June. 1995 cannot be interfered with. 10. We, therefore, agree with the judgment and order under appeal and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.