JUDGEMENT 1. This is yet another case in which interference of the Government and its functionaries in the functioning of statutory body like University, being governed by Act and Statutes for its functioning, has come to light. 2. From Annexure-8, it appears that on the basis of resolution of the Promotion Committee of the University dated 3.5.2007, petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Clerk in Gopalganj College, Gopalganj. The said decision of the Promotion Committee was notified by the Registrar of the University through his office order contained in memo no. 5800(R) dated 5.6.2007. From Annexure-2, it appears that, soon after the said order was issued, under the signature of the Registrar, some communication was received in the University from one Deputy Secretary of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad contained in letter no. 2329 dated 4.7.2007 which contained some direction, in the light of which the Registrar by his letter no. 5958(R) dated 21.7.2007 (Annexure-2) stayed the said office order, as contained in Annexure-8, by which, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Annexure-2 clearly shows that the Registrar had issued the office order only on the dictates of the Deputy Secretary of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad. Thus, hardly one month after the order of promotion of the petitioner was issued on the basis of resolution of the Promotion Committee, the same was stayed at the instance of the direction contained in the said letter of the Deputy Secretary. Thereafter, matter remained pending and it is clear that the University did not venture to take any independent decision in any manner whatsoever. Finally, another office order was issued by the Registrar, as contained in memo no. 528(R) dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure-1), by which, on the recommendation of the Nivedan Samittee of Bihar Vidhan Parishad, the respondent no. 3 was promoted to the post of Head Clerk in Kamla Rai College, Gopalganj, which was the new name of erstwhile Gopalganj College, Gopalganj. Thus, for all practical purposes the promotion of the petitioner stood cancelled and respondent no. 3 stood promoted to the post of Head Clerk on the dictates of the Nivedan Samittee of Bihar Vidhan Parishad. During this entire period, the matter was not placed before the Promotion Committee of the University for its reconsideration independently on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the University as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 stood promoted to the post of Head Clerk on the dictates of the Nivedan Samittee of Bihar Vidhan Parishad. During this entire period, the matter was not placed before the Promotion Committee of the University for its reconsideration independently on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the University as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submit that, after the said order was issued by the Registrar on the dictates of the Deputy Secretary of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad, the matter was heard by the Director in which petitioner also participated and thereafter, the Director submitted his report to the Nivedan Samittee of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad. On the basis of said report of the Director, Higher Education, the Bihar Vidhan Parishad had made recommendation which was complied with by the Registrar by the impugned order Annexure-1. 4. This Court fails to appreciate as to under what authority of law the Director, Higher Education or the said Nivedan Samittee of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad had taken up the matter to interfere in the day to day functioning of the University. The promotion and service conditions of the employees are squarely covered by the Act and Statutes framed therein and the power lies exclusively with the University authorities in the matter. Neither the power can be delegated to any functionaries of the State nor any functionaries of the State can usurp the power. The power which vests in the University and its functionaries under provisions of an Act framed by the Legislature and under Statutes framed by the Chancellor under the provisions of the Act, has to be exercised by the University authorities themselves and none else. This day to day interference in the affairs of the University by the State functionaries has become rampant and this Court deprecates the same. 5. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the recommendation of the Nivedan Samittee of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad and direction of the Deputy Secretary contained in his said letter dated 4.7.2007 were without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Registrar committed error of law in issuing office orders on the basis of the same. 6. As a result, the impugned Annexures-1 and 2 as aforesaid are hereby quashed. Therefore, the Registrar committed error of law in issuing office orders on the basis of the same. 6. As a result, the impugned Annexures-1 and 2 as aforesaid are hereby quashed. Quashing of the said order does not preclude the University authorities and Promotion Committee to examine the matter afresh on its own merits and take independent decision without being swayed away or influenced by the said recommendation of the Deputy Secretary, Nivedan Samittee of Bihar Vidhan Parishad or any other authority having no jurisdiction under the Act and Statutes to interfere in the matter. 7. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the rival parties for promotion.