By Court.- We have heard both sides and gone through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Petitioner-respondent was a Reader in Ranchi University. He claimed for Time Bound Promotion to the post of Professor on completing 16 years of service, which was completed in 1986. The University initially gave him provisional promotion to the post of Professor under the statutes with effect from 1986. However, for the purpose of finalization of the promotion, the matter went before the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (referred hereinafter as 'Commission'). The Commission recommended for the grant of time bound promotion to the post of Professor for the petitioner-respondent w.e.f. 1988 instead of 1986. The petitioner claimed for promotion in that category w.e.f. 1986. 3. The Commission was a party to the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge but chose not to file a counter affidavit although represented by its Standing Counsel. 4. Although, in absence of a counter affidavit from the Commission, reasons for the 2 years delay of promotion cannot be said to be absolutely clear, but apparently the delay in the date for granting promotion between 1986 and 1988 was on account of a decision by the University enhancing qualification. The decision was struck down as it had been taken by way of administrative decision without consequential amendment in the statutes. This was upheld by the Supreme Court. 5. Therefore, the only reason which could possibly be the basis for delaying the time bound promotion to 1988 instead of 1986 on part of the Commission is not valid. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2003 allowed the Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3231 of 2000(R) and directed the petitioner to be promoted with effect from 10.11.1986 instead of 12.7.1988 and also granted consequential benefits. 6. The Commission has not chosen to file any appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which means that the decision is acceptable to the Commission. The University which has merely to implement the decision of the Commission has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The grounds urged by the University are basically the grounds which are not available to the University but which could possibly have been raised by the Commission. The University which has merely to implement the decision of the Commission has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The grounds urged by the University are basically the grounds which are not available to the University but which could possibly have been raised by the Commission. As already stated above, the Commission had accepted the decision and the grounds which might have been available to the Commission cannot be entertained as raised from the side of the University. 8. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the University that even if the decision of the Commission was found by the learned Single Judge to be not sustainable, the matter should have been remanded for fresh consideration about the date with effect from which promotion should be granted by the Commission. This is a ground which may have been available to the Commission but not to the University. 9. The promotion which has actually been granted to the petitioner is in 1997, was given retrospectively with effect from 1988. When the actual promotion has been granted in 1997 retrospectively with effect from 1988 and not with effect from 1986, such decision cannot be permitted to be arbitrary or whimsical. It has to be supported by cogent and valid reasons. As stated above, since there was no valid reasons to support such decision on the part of the Commission and consequently on the part of the University, the writ petition was allowed and the promotion was directed to be given with effect from 1986. 10. The decision of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any such illegality or infirmity as would call for interference in this appeal. 11. It may be mentioned herein that the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 3049 and 3050 of 1988 (Dr. SW. M. Sabuktagin and Others & R. Sinha vs. The State of Bihar and Others) & CWJC No. 3409 of 1996(R) (Dr. Braj Kumar Mishra VS. The State of Bihar and Others). 12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. He has further argued that there is no difference between the case of the petitioner-respondent and the cases of the petitioners in those cases before the Patna High Court. 13. Braj Kumar Mishra VS. The State of Bihar and Others). 12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. He has further argued that there is no difference between the case of the petitioner-respondent and the cases of the petitioners in those cases before the Patna High Court. 13. We have referred these decisions only because they have been cited but even without these decisions, the appeal deserves to b~ dismissed on the reasons given by us. 14. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.