Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition was originally filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the decision indicated in the letter dated 08.03.2003 treating the petitioner as not regularized in the University service. He had sought issuance for mandamus for confirmation/regularization of his services on the post of Lecturer in English and also to grant Time Bound Promotion in prescribed scale as also arrears of salary for the period from January, 1986 to October, 1996 on implementation of the UGC pay scale and the revision made thereafter. 3. The said prayer was made by the petitioner in the background of facts as stated on his behalf that he was initially appointed on 22.12.1976 on leave vacancy of one Shree Janardan Prasad, Lecturer in English in K.S. College, Seraikella. Thereafter, he submitted his joining on 02.01.1977. On 27.07.1978, the post was advertised in Searchlight Newspaper. The petitioner was appointed again on 29.08.1978 on the same post of Lecturer by the governing body whereafter he submitted his joining on 01.09.1978. 4. According to the petitioner, Ranchi University sanctioned two posts of lecturer for the said college in English subject on 30.08.1979, Annexure-3. The petitioner's services was granted temporary concurrence from the Bihar University Service Commission on 28.01.1980 vide Annexure-4 whereas his name figures at serial no. 6 in the same English Department. The said letter imposed a condition that the concurrence is for a period effective for three months from the date of such concurrence. Thereafter, the college was taken over as a constituent college on 10/11.12.1980 by the Ranchi University by a notification of the State Government contained at Annexure-5 of the same date, which was issued in view of the decision taken by the Education Department letter no. 382 dated 24.07.1980. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the statute for regularization notified on 29.01.1986, as per which services of the purely temporary lectures appointed on or before 28.02.1982 were to be regularized after undertaking a screening process and exercise. The said statute is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition which inter alia imposed conditions (a) that the person should have been appointed as a lecturer in the service of the university on purely temporary basis on or before 28.02.1982 and has been continuing since then in the service of the university/college. The said statute is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition which inter alia imposed conditions (a) that the person should have been appointed as a lecturer in the service of the university on purely temporary basis on or before 28.02.1982 and has been continuing since then in the service of the university/college. (b) that he possesses at least a second class Master's degree in the subject (c) that the post on which the lecturer concerned had been appointed was duly sanctioned by the competent authority or the proposal for sanction of the post had been submitted by the University/College of the State Government on or before 28.02.1982 and subsequently approved by the State Government or was still under consideration. (d) that the appointment had been made on the basis of advertisement of the post in the Indian Nation, Searchlight, Aryavarta, Pradeep or in any other daily Newspaper of Bihar State or in a leading newspaper of India (e) that his work was found to be satisfactory. (f) that the Chancellor, on recommendation of a committee constituted by specified persons was satisfied that the candidate fulfills the condition laid down above. It also provided that the Chancellor may in case of individual hardship in respect of any lecturer appointed at the time of the starting of the College against the first post in the department, relax any of the condition prescribed in clause (d) above. Note Below also indicated that the conditions prescribed in clause (d) shall be deemed to be fulfilled if the name of the lecturer concerned had ever been recommended by the Bihar Public/University Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lecturer or if his appointment had been made in the post on the basis of advertisement and selection as required above. Clause-4 of the said notification also prescribed that seniority of lecturers absorbed in the regular service under the said provision shall be determined from the date of their absorption. These statutes were not applicable to temporary lecturers appointed after 28.02.1982. 5. The petitioner was paid salary in the prescribed scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-for the period from 02.01.1986 to 30.09.1996. As per the time bound promotion scheme of 24.12.1986, the petitioner was granted promotion in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700/-on 11.10.1996 vide Annexure-12. The petitioner's service book was, however, opened in September, 1997. 5. The petitioner was paid salary in the prescribed scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-for the period from 02.01.1986 to 30.09.1996. As per the time bound promotion scheme of 24.12.1986, the petitioner was granted promotion in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700/-on 11.10.1996 vide Annexure-12. The petitioner's service book was, however, opened in September, 1997. On 11.05.1999, the letter of requisition was sent by the Ranchi University to Deputy Secretary, State Government, Human Resources Department, to send the name of two experts/members to be included in committee for considering absorption/regularization of services of temporary Lecturer. In the aforesaid background of facts, the petitioner has stated that he had regularly represented with supporting documents before the University for regularization of his services vide representation contained at Annexures-10, 11 series, 14/1 and 14/2 to the writ petition, which ranges from September, 1981 onwards till March, 2003. He is said to have represented before the Hon'ble Chancellor through proper channel for his regularization vide some of the same representations. 6. According to the petitioner, when an information was sent by the Ranchi University to the Principal of the College regarding pending cases in respect of implementation of new UGC pay scale, the petitioner noticed that against his name, it was observed that the petitioner's services were not regularized. The said letter was dated 08.03.2003, Annexure-14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointedly made reference to the name of Miss K. Annapurna in the said letter against whose name also it was indicated that her services were not regularized. However, the pay scale of Miss K. Annapurna was later on provisionally fixed in the UGC scale Rs. 8000-13500/-with effect from 01.01.1996. In the background of aforesaid facts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 05.05.2003. 7. Learned Single Judge of this Court while in-seisin of the matter on 25.03.2009 passed the following direction upon the respondents to take a decision on question relating to regularization of the petitioner. 8000-13500/-with effect from 01.01.1996. In the background of aforesaid facts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 05.05.2003. 7. Learned Single Judge of this Court while in-seisin of the matter on 25.03.2009 passed the following direction upon the respondents to take a decision on question relating to regularization of the petitioner. The said order is quoted hereinbelow:- “The respondents are directed to take a decision within a period of four weeks and file the same on affidavit before this Court as to why the prayer should not be allowed in the light of the fact that the petitioner fulfils all the criteria as prescribed under the statute which is annexed at page 64 of the Paper Book and also in view of the fact that the petitioner possess second class Master Degree and he has completed 24 months service before 1980 and also fulfils the further criteria as specified, more so when similarly situated persons have been extended the same benefit during the pendency of this writ petition and an example has been cited of one Miss K. Annapurna. Let the same also be considered. List this matter after four weeks.” 8. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University thereafter rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization vide order passed on 25.04.2009, which is at Annexure-15 to the amended writ petition and impugned by an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner which was allowed on 18.01.2013. In the aforesaid background of the facts and circumstances, the case has been argued today on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Incidentally, the College in question subsequently fell within the jurisdiction of Kolhan University, Chaibasa, which was also added as a party and has entered appearance through their counsel. The Ranchi University, under which the College earlier fell, had already filed counter affidavit inter alia taking a stand that University had taken steps requesting the Hon'ble Chancellor to nominate experts for screening committee, which was to consider cases of regularization of such Lecturers The respondent-Ranchi University have, however, justified the said reasoned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the two folds grounds (a) in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2001(2) PLJR 817 regularization under the aforesaid statute or any other similar statue cannot be given effect to after the said judgment. Shiv Narain Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2001(2) PLJR 817 regularization under the aforesaid statute or any other similar statue cannot be given effect to after the said judgment. (b) they have distinguished the case of Miss K. Annapurna by stating that she had joined on 15.08.1979 at S.B. College, Chandil and also appeared before Ranchi University Selection Committee and thereafter on the recommendation of the said committee has been working as a teacher appointed by the Ranchi University vide RU Memo No. B/1251-331 dated 20.04.1983 and posted at Jamshedpur Women's College. Her services have subsequently been confirmed by the Ranchi University. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Miss K. Annapurna. 10. The Kolhan University has entered appearance through their counsel, but no counter affidavit has been filed by them. 11. The State Government, in their counter affidavit, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner stating that initial appointment of the petitioner was against a leave vacancy and he has subsequently been appointed without any proper advertisement. The State Government have also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court and also have submitted that the petitioner's service book was opened in the year 1997 and there are conflicting date of entry in the service book like 1976 and another of 1978, which may have been done by the Principal of the College, who helped the petitioner. It is submitted that the appointment was made without any advertisement and there was no interview or preparation of any panel, which is against the provision of the University Act. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and had the occasion to go through the materials placed on record. 13. The background facts of the case of the petitioner has been noted in the opening paragraph of the judgment. On the earlier occasion on 25.03.2009, the learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an interim direction upon the respondents to take a decision on the question relating to regularization of the petitioner's services. Apparently, the said decision has been taken on 25.04.2009 (Annexure-15) against the petitioner on the two grounds as indicated earlier i.e. (i) based on the import of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Apparently, the said decision has been taken on 25.04.2009 (Annexure-15) against the petitioner on the two grounds as indicated earlier i.e. (i) based on the import of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav (Supra) that no regularization of teachers should be done on the basis of the statute of 29.01.1986 henceforth (ii) that the case of Miss K. Annapurna is distinguishable to that of the petitioner. So far as the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High court is concerned, the said judgment appears to have been rendered after the creation of the successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand i.e. on 02.03.2001. In the present case, the learned Single Judge of this Court had earlier issued a categorical direction on 25.03.2009 upon the respondents to take a decision in the matter and while doing so also noticed that similarly situated persons have been extended the same benefit during the pendency of the writ petition. An example of Miss K. Annapurna was also referred in the said order. From perusal of Annexure-14 which is one of the impugned letter dated 08.03.2003, issued by the Registrar of the Ranchi University, it is apparent that the services of petitioner as well as Dr. K. Annapurna were shown to have been not regularized by that date. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondents took a decision to regularize the services of Miss K. Annapurna after 08.03.2003 i.e. after passing of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav (Supra) by the Patna High Court. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be a sustainable ground not to take a decision on the question of regularization of the services of the present petitioner. Apart from that from chronology of facts which have been indicated earlier, the petitioner's appointment admittedly was concurred by the Bihar University Service Commission on 28.01.1980 though for a period of three months vide Annexure-4. It is not in dispute by the respondents either that the petitioner has continued to teach in the subject of English in the said College in question since then and after the College was taken over as constituent College of the Ranchi University on 10/11.12.1980. The petitioner has also got the benefit of time bound promotion conferred by the respondents as also the benefit of UGC scale under the 4th Pay Revision. 14. The petitioner has also got the benefit of time bound promotion conferred by the respondents as also the benefit of UGC scale under the 4th Pay Revision. 14. It is also evident that the University under took an exercise to seek the name of experts for constituting the screening committee for considering the case of regularization of services of Temporary Lecturers by asking the names of experts from the State Government vide letter dated 11.05.1999. Therefore, it cannot be said that the University had taken prompt and urgent steps upon notification of the statute dated 29.01.1986 for considering the cases of regularization of such Temporary Lecturers. If no decision on the question of regularization of the services of the petitioner were taken prior to 1999, the petitioner obviously cannot be attributed the sole fault for such a delay in taking such decision. The act of regularization had to be undertaken by the respondent authorities which include the University and the State Government as well. In the wake of aforesaid facts, when the process of undertaking an exercise for regularization was commenced as late as May 1999, the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University was not justified in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court as aforesaid when the case of other similarly situated person like Miss K. Annapurna was considered and regularized even thereafter. It, therefore, appears that the respondents have not considered the matter relating to regularization of the petitioner's services on merits taking into account all attendant facts and circumstances and the provisions of the statute of 1986 itself in question and whether the petitioner fulfilled the laid down condition therein. Therefore, in the aforesaid state of facts, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the respondents. The impugned order dated 25.04.2009 (Annexure-15), therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law and it is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. The respondents would take a decision in the matter on its own merit without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. 16. The matter is remanded to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. The respondents would take a decision in the matter on its own merit without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. 16. Due to change in the circumstances that the college in question now falls within the Kolhan University, Chaibasa created during the pendency of the writ petition, the concerned respondent authority of the Kolhan University, Chaibasa and the State respondent would consider the matter in accordance with law. 17. The Ranchi University, if it is in custody of the relevant records relating to the petitioner's case would forthwith transmit the same to the Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa. 18. Needless to say that the State Government shall do the needful and nominate experts for consideration of the said committee if not already in existence. 19. Dependant upon the said decision taken by the respondents, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for regularization in service, then any consequential benefit of service would thereafter be conferred upon him in accordance with law within a reasonable time thereafter. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Petition allowed.