JUDGEMENT 1. Having heard Mr. Ajey Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned counsel for L.N.Mithila University as with regard to the following prayer prayed in this writ application: "This is an application for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing that part of notification as contained in memo no. VC R-1546-72/06, dated 8.11.2006 (Ahnexure 8), by which petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Reader w.e.f. 1.6.89 instead of 1.2.1985 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Reader w.e.f. 1.2.1985 and University Professor w.e.f. 6.8.1995 and to fix and pay the consequential benefits i.e. arrears of salary as well as arrears of pension all with interest @ 12% and pension accordingly and further be pleased to grant other relief or reliefs to which petitioner is found entitled in the eyes of law." This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, a retired teacher of D.B.K.N., Narhan, Samastipur, has a genuine grievance as with regard to shifting of his date of promotion on the post of Reader. 2 The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in the Department of History while the said College was an affiliated unit of the University on 6.8.1970. Subsequently the Commission had advertised the post and as the petitioner after facing interview of the College Service Commission was recommended by the College Service Commission for his appointment on 21.4.1975. Eventually the petitioner, who was also continuing as a temporary Lecturer in the Department of History in the College was made permanent against his sanctioned post and that is how his services were also taken over by the University when the said College became a constituent unit in the year 1980-81. The petitioner having become eligible for consideration of his case under the time bound promotion statute of the Chancellor dated 24.12.1986 was given such provisional promotion on the post of Reader by the University by an order dated 22.4.1989 with effect from 1.2.1985 which of course was subject to approval and concurrence of the Bihar State Constituent Colleges University Service Commission. It appears that the Commission thereafter on 7.9.2006 had recommended for grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner by shifting the date from 1.2.1985 to 1.6.1989 and the Registrar of the University accordingly on 8.11.2006 had issued the impugned order shifting the date of promotion of the petitioner from 1.2.1985 to 1.6.1989. Since the order was passed against the petitioner after his retirement he had filed a representation to the Principal of the College and that having remained unanswered the petitioner has filed this writ application on 19.2.2007. 3. As usual there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the University and Mr. Shahi has only taken a plea that the University in its own wisdom had rightly given promotion to the petitioner on the post of Reader with effect from 1.2.1985 but then if the Commission had changed the date or shifted the date from 1.2.1985 to 1.6.1989 the University could have hardly any say in such matter. 4. In the opinion of this Court had the University filed its counter affidavit clarifying its stand on the issues raised in the writ application specially with regard to substantive appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer the question raised herein could have been easily answered inasmuch as the Time Bound promotion Statues clearly lay down one of the requirement for such time bound promotion of the person holding substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer. It has to be taken into account that the respondents cannot ignore the services of the petitioner of his substantive appointment made in the affiliated college as has been settled by this Court in the case of B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University Teachers Association V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1998(2) PLJR 103 as also subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Budhadeo Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1) PLJR 141 , wherein it has been held that "even the period spent by a Lecturer in an affiliated college before it became constituent has to be taken into consideration for computation of the period of 10 years for grant of time bound promotion under the Statute dated 24.12.1986". 5. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court would remit the matter back to the statutory Committee of the University which will look into the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to his time bound promotion on the post of Reader with effect from 1.2.1985. 6. It is made clear that the date of promotion of petitioner as claimed by him i.e. 1.2.1985 as also notified by the University may not be available to him inasmuch as the recommendation of the Commission on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis on the post of Lectuer in the College in question is dated 21.4.1975 and therefore, the substantive appointment made in terms of the recommendation of the Commission, which is the beginning point for computation of 10 years period under the Time Bound promotion Statute cannot be earlier than 10.04.1985. The authorities of the University, therefore, with the help of the records of the College would find out the actual date of substantive appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation of the Commission dated 10.4.1975 and would fix the date of grant of time bound promotion after completion of ten years from such date. In doing so the view taken by the Commission of fixing the date of 1.2.1989 (sic1.6.1989?) shall also be taken into consideration but that alone will not be made the deciding factor for fixing the date of promotion of the petitioner for such time bound promotion. 7. In order to expedite such consideration this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation enclosing a copy of this order as also any other document by way of evidence to show and establish his date of substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer and the University will be under obligation to dispose of the representation by a speaking order within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It goes without saying that if the petitioners date of time bound promotion is shifted from 1.6.1989 to any other earlier date as may be decided by the University and the petitioner also becomes entitled for certain consequential financial benefit, the same shall also be extended to the petitioner within a period of next three months from the date of passing such order. 9. 9. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.