ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There are 4 petitioners herein whose undisputed relevant details for considering the issue in controversy are quoted herein below, as culled out from para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent-University. Only the date of joining of petitioner no.4, Vinay Akhouri should be 24.10.1983, which is incorrectly shown as 24.10.1993 in the said Chart:- Petitioners of Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribag Name Subject Date of Joining Date of Absorption on sanctioned post Date of sanctioning of post 1. Dr. Prafulla Chandra Roy History 3.10.1983 30.4.1986-2nd 28.2.1982 2. Surendra Barai Philosophy 3.10.1983 30.4.1986-2nd 28.2.1982 3. Nityanand Mishra Chemistry 5.12.1980 30.4.1986-1st 21.12.1984 4. Vinay Akhauri Physics 24.10.1983 30.4.1986-1st 21.12.1984 3. Annexure-2 is their absorption notification issued by the respondent-Vinoba Bhave University (VBU) in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098/97 dated 12.10.2004 in the case of State of Bihar & others Vrs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 on the basis of the report and recommendation of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retd.) Commission, by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the power vested under Section 4(1) 14 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Admittedly, these petitioners have been absorbed on the sanctioned post on 30.4.1986 and the college in question was taken over as constituent college under 4th Phase where the cut off date for absorption was 30.4.1986. 4. In the background of these relevant facts, the plea raised by the petitioners is for shifting of their substantive date of appointment to their initial date of their joining in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & others(supra) and the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2009 dated 6.1.2012 in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhauri Vrs. the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University & others reported in 2012 (2) JCR 153 (Jhr) (Annexure-6). 5. Anant Kumar Akhauri Vrs. the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University & others reported in 2012 (2) JCR 153 (Jhr) (Annexure-6). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the directions passed in the case of Gokul Narayan Das in W.P.S. No. 5310 of 2007 vide judgment dated 24.8.2011 upon the respondent-department to decide the petitioner's representation for correction of date of absorption(Annexure-9 series).It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that substantive date of appointment of said Gokul Narayan Das was also shifted and was considered for grant of promotion from the initial date of joining under the 10 years time bound promotion scheme vide notification bearing no. 105 dated 22.1.2014 of the respondent-University. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred from the rejoinder affidavit filed on 10.11.2014 at para 9 where para 53 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & others(supra) has been quoted in order to submit that under Section 35 want of prior approval from the State Government would not be an impediment in the way of the University to permit absorption of an employee working against the post. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-University and the State have resisted the prayer of the petitioners by way of filing counter affidavit. It is submitted that petitioners are not entitled for shifting their date of substantive appointment to their initial date of joining for the reason that they are not covered under the Statutes for Regularization of the Service of Purely Temporary Lecturers Appointed on or before 28.2.1982, as approved by the Chancellor vide letter dated 29.1.1986, which lays down the cut off date of 28.2.1982 and several other conditions required to be satisfied. It is stated that the college in question was taken over as constituent college in the 4th Phase and the cut off date for absorption was 30.4.1986. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the report of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission did not make any directions / recommendation for absorption in such cases, in the list with which petitioners are concerned from the initial date of joining, though the college itself was taken over as constituent college in the 4th Phase with the cut of date of absorption as 30.4.1986. They have also submitted that the reliance of the petitioners upon the case of Gokul Narayan Das(Supra) would not improve their case as any such instance cannot be relied in derogation of what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the learned Division Bench in the cases of Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & others (supra) and Dr. Anant Kumar Akhauri (supra) respectively. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is to be observed that in compliance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the recommendation of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission, absorption of the petitioners have been done w.e.f 30.4.1986 as the college in question was taken over as constituent college in the 4th Phase and cut off date for absorption was 30.4.1986. The relevant para 53 relied upon by the petitioners themselves would show that Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed in the opening line of the said paragraph that it would be sufficient for the Court to opine that Clause (14) of Section 4(1) operates in an exclusive field of considering and taking decision on absorption of staff appointed regularly or otherwise in an institution including an affiliated or non-affiliated college which is to be taken over as constituent college under a formal agreement reached between the University and the Governing Body of that college. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be allowed to read the said para out of context in which such an observation was made relating to the requirement of prior approval under Section 35 for the purpose of absorption of the Staffs of the college. In the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhauri (supra) also upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Division Bench of this Court had occasion to decide the issue in context of the statute regarding 'Regularization of the services of purely temporary lecturers appointed on or before 28.2.1982', as approved by the Chancellor on 29.1.1986. Perusal of the statute shows requirement of fulfillment of several conditions as contained in para 1 there of which is quoted herein below:- “Para 1. Perusal of the statute shows requirement of fulfillment of several conditions as contained in para 1 there of which is quoted herein below:- “Para 1. A purely temporary lecturer, who is in the service of the University or of a college admitted to it as a Lecturer shall be appointed by the Syndicate or the Governing Body as the case may be, in the regular service of the University or the College concerned, if he fulfills the following conditions:- (a) That, he had been appointed as a lecturer in the service of the University or the college concerned on purely temporary basis on or before the 28th February, 1982 and has been since then continuing in the service of the University / College as such; [(b) that, he possesses at least a second class Master 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 to the State Government in the Education Deptt. on or before 28.2.1982 which was subsequently approved by State Govt. or the said proposal is still under consideration of the State Govt.] (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 and from the panel recommended by a Selection Committee constituted by the University / College for the purposes, assisted by an expert or experts; (e) that, his work has been found to be satisfactory; and (f) that, the Chancellor, on the recommendation of a Committee constituted by him consisting of (i) the Vice-Chancellor / Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University, (ii) an Officer nominated by the State Government and (iii) two experts nominated by the Chancellor , is satisfied that the candidate fulfills the conditions laid down above: Provided that the Chancellor, may in the 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 conditions prescribed in clause (d) above. N.B. The conditions prescribed under clause (d) above 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 as lecturer had ever been made in the post on the basis of advertisement and selection as required above”. 8. It also appears that the statute would not be applicable to the temporary lecturer appointed after 28.2.1982. Therefore, petitioners' case is to be guided in the matter of absorption on the cut off date for absorption i.e. 30.4.1986 for the college in question which was taken over as constituent college in the 4th phase. Though one of the petitioner i.e. petitioner no.3, Nitya Nand Mishra had joined before 28.2.1982 but in his case the post of Chemistry was sanctioned on 21.12.1984. Instance of Gokul Narayan Das (supra) therefore would not be of any help to the petitioners as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned Division Bench of this Court on the point cannot be derogated from. Therefore, the plea of shifting of the date of substantive appointment based upon the aforesaid grounds by the petitioner is not made out on any tenable grounds. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Single Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Budhadeo Prasad Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in [(2007) 1 BLJR 0041 (Pat)] to submit that initial date of joining of teacher in an affiliated college is to be counted for computing his qualifying service for promotion without any reference to the date on which State government gave permission for creation of post as sought by the University. 10. Needless to say that it is for the petitioners to place reliance upon the said judgment to make such claim for promotion before the respondent-University which may be considered on its own merit. However, this Court, on the main plea of the petitioners relating to shifting of substantive date of appointment to their initial date of joining is not satisfied that any grounds are made out for interference. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.