ORDER : 1. Seeking a direction to the respondent-Vinoba Bhave University to consider granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Reader taking his initial date of appointment on 01.09.1980, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner was appointed in Chas College, Chas on 30.08.1980 as a Lecturer, where he joined the said post on 01.09.1980. In the said college, the first post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy was sanctioned on 13.09.1978 and concurrence of the Bihar College Service Commission for temporary appointment of the petitioner on the first sanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy was granted on 19.11.1984. Thereafter, the University issued a notification on 04.08.1998 which would disclose the date of regularization of the petitioner as 18.11.1980. However, in notification dated 16.09.2005, the date of absorption of the petitioner has been shown as 09.05.1988. The petitioner seeks modification in notification dated 16.09.2005 for shifting his date of absorption to 18.11.1980. 4. Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to Statute for Time Bound Promotion of Lecturers to the post of Reader, to submit that the petitioner who completed 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer is entitled for promotion to the post of Reader. It is contended that atleast from the date the Commission granted its concurrence for appointment of the petitioner on the sanctioned post, that is, from 19.11.1984, on completion of 10 years of continuous service he is entitled for grant of promotion. Alternatively, the learned counsel relies on decision in "Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara Vs. Ranchi University and Ors." reported in 2009(1) JCR 380 (JHR) and "Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University and Ors." reported in 2012(2) JCR 153 (JHR) to contend that the period between 01.09.1980 to 19.11.1984 must be counted for the purpose of promotion under the Statute. 5. Per contra, Mrs. I.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent-Vinoba Bhave University, referring to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, submits that the issue stands concluded by the recommendation of the Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal Commission, which has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the petitioner who was absorbed in services w.e.f. 09.05.1988, cannot seek shifting of the date of his regular appointment from 09.05.1988 to 01.09.1980 or to 19.11.1984. 6. It is contended that the petitioner who was absorbed in services w.e.f. 09.05.1988, cannot seek shifting of the date of his regular appointment from 09.05.1988 to 01.09.1980 or to 19.11.1984. 6. The Statute for Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers to the post of Reader lays down the following conditions for promotion: (i) The candidate holds a qualification as prescribed for the post of Lecturer under the Statute in force at the time of his appointment as Lecturer and has fulfilled other conditions, if any, attached thereto, (ii) He holds substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer and, (iii) He has completed atleast 10 years of continuous service as Lecturer in one or more university. Besides the above conditions, a Lecturer can be promoted to the post of Reader only on recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. It is stated that now the Commission has been replaced by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Insofar as completion of 10 years of continuous service is concerned, there is no dispute. The dispute is in respect of date of substantive appointment. The report of Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal Commission would disclose that at the time of his appointment on the post of Lecturer, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualifications under 1978 Statute, which governed the field at the time of his appointment. Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal Commission has fixed the date of petitioner's absorption as 09.05.1988. In the context of the plea taken by the petitioner that his service from the date when the Commission granted concurrence for his appointment should be his date of substantive appointment, it needs to be recorded that the approval granted by the Commission was for temporary appointment of the petitioner on the said post. 7. Mr. M. S. Anwar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has however, contended that the date of joining, that is, 01.09.1980 would be the date which shall be reckoned for consideration for promotion to the post of Reader w.e.f. 01.09.1990. A perusal of the decision in "Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri" case would disclose that the applicant in the said case was initially appointed on the vacant post in a constituent college on 23.02.1978 and this Court accepted his initial date of appointment as 23.02.1978. There was no dispute in respect of Dr. Akhouri's eligibility for appointment as Lecturer. A perusal of the decision in "Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri" case would disclose that the applicant in the said case was initially appointed on the vacant post in a constituent college on 23.02.1978 and this Court accepted his initial date of appointment as 23.02.1978. There was no dispute in respect of Dr. Akhouri's eligibility for appointment as Lecturer. The petitioner was not eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer and thus, his appointment on the first sanctioned post was not a substantive appointment, may be the post was substantive. Similarly, the facts in "Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara" case are entirely different from the facts in the present case. 8. The date of absorption fixed by the Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal Commission has been concurred by the Hon'ble S.B. Sinha Commission, which by an order dated 07.08.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization and promotion under the 1986 Statute. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that order dated 07.08.2014 is not on merits. Be that as it may, from the facts disclosed in the writ petition, it does not appear that the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the report of Agarwal Commission the date for consideration fixed by the Commission is the date notified in the notification dated 16.09.2005 issued by the respondent-Vinoba Bhave University. There cannot be a quarrel on the issue that there is a distinction between the date of absorption/regularization and the date of initial appointment. One may be absorbed from the date of initial appointment provided there was a sanctioned vacant post and the candidate fulfilled all requisite qualifications at the time of initial appointment. However, a person who was not eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer on the date on which he was initially appointed or when the first post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy was sanctioned cannot claim promotion from the date of initial appointment or when the post was sanctioned. 9. In the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the stand taken by the respondent-University that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion under 1986 Statute, as his date of substantive appointment is 09.05.1988. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.