ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.1 in writ petition No. 594 of 2015. This writ petition was preferred by respondent no.1 (original writ petitioner) with the following prayers : “(i) For promotion to the post of the University Professor w.e.f. 10.7.1988/10.7.1997 with all consequential benefits under 16/25 years Time Bound Promotion Scheme of the Statute 4032 dated 24.12.1986 in view of the applications of the petitioner submitted from 2000 onwards including the one dated 10.2.2014 made in response to the notification dated 5.12.2013 as per the Syndicate Resolution No. 707/2013 inviting applications from Readers for promotion to the posts of University Professor under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme and for quashing the report of the screening committee dated 1.7.1998 (Annexure-5 herein) as the same being arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and void. (ii) For payment of the salary arrears dues of the petitioner of about Rs.1,64,432/- in Professor’s scale of pay for the period February, 1993 to September, 1996. (iii) For any other appropriate relief’s for which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and enquity.” 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that initially, the father of respondent no.1 was appointed as Lecturer. Thereafter, he was given promotion as Reader and now he is seeking promotion on the post of Professor. It further appears from the facts of the case that provisional promotion was given to father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) with effect from 10th July, 1998. The said promotion order is at Annexure-4 and it has been mentioned in Annexure-4-provisional promotion order that “If the University Service Commission does not concur in his/her promotion the provisional promotion so made shall cease to be effective immediately.” 3. Thus, the provisional promotion was given which was subject to the final approval to be given by the University Service Commission. In the facts of the present case, such approval or concurrentment was never given by the University Service Commission. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that the Screening Committee was constituted for the Time Bound Promotion to be given to the candidates and the case of father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was never recommended in the meeting of Screening Committee dated 01.07.1998. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that the Screening Committee was constituted for the Time Bound Promotion to be given to the candidates and the case of father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was never recommended in the meeting of Screening Committee dated 01.07.1998. This minutes is at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Thus, it appears that the Screening Committee in their meeting dated 01.07.1998 had never approved the Time Bound Promotion to be given to father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner). This decision has not been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, despite there was prayer in the writ petition. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) obtained Ph.D. degree in the year, 1991. He retired on 31st January, 2008. 7. It appears that under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Section 26(1)(a) to be read with Section 14 thereof University Grants Commission Regulations, 1991 have been enacted and as per Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1991 under Schedule-I, there is a minimum qualification for the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer etc. So far as the minimum qualification of the Professor is concerned the father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was not possessing the said minimum qualification, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the original petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1975, thereafter he was promoted on the post of Reader in December, 1985 therefore, he was not having a minimum qualification for the post of a Professor. 8. Be that as it may, but, the fact remains that the Screening Committee had not given approval or had not recommended father of respondent no.1 for grant of First Time Bound Promotion in the meeting dated 01.07.1998 and this decision has not been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge and it appears that the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph no.7 as under : “7. Consequently, until no contrary decision is taken by the competent Service Commission upon the claim of the petitioner, the notification bearing memo no. 3614-3740 dated 8th April, 1990, issued by the respondent-Ranchi University, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application shall remain effective and in force. Consequently, until no contrary decision is taken by the competent Service Commission upon the claim of the petitioner, the notification bearing memo no. 3614-3740 dated 8th April, 1990, issued by the respondent-Ranchi University, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application shall remain effective and in force. The petitioner is held to be entitled to the salary of the University Professor in terms of the said notification. The Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Ranchi University are directed to complete the required formalities so that the salary of the University Professor is released to the petitioner positively within the period of three months from the date of communication/production of this order.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Thus, not only promotion has been given by the learned Single Judge, but, salary for promotional post has also been given. 10. It ought to be kept in mind that there is no right of promotion vested in any of the employees. At the most there is right to be considered for the promotional post. There is vast difference between grant of promotion and to be considered for promotion. 11. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. J.S. Bansal and Another, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 714 especially in paragraph no. 13 as under : “13. Undoubtedly, an employee has a right of being considered for promotion but he cannot claim promotion as of right. Right to be considered for promotion is obviously different and distinct from right of promotion. Even if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an employee and those proceedings are pending on the date on which names of other employees are considered for promotion to the next higher post, the delinquent employee, if he is similarly circumstanced as other employees and is also eligible, has a right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post along with other employees. His name cannot be omitted from consideration merely because of the pendency of the departmental proceedings. An employee cannot be denied this right at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings as he is still to be found guilty on the basis of the evidence which might be produced against him during those proceedings. His name cannot be omitted from consideration merely because of the pendency of the departmental proceedings. An employee cannot be denied this right at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings as he is still to be found guilty on the basis of the evidence which might be produced against him during those proceedings. Till the charges are established, his right to be considered cannot be defeated as he is not under the cloud of having been found guilty but is only suspected to be guilty. Mere suspicion is not a substitute for proof. Consideration for promotion along with other eligible candidates is done so as to give effect to the fundamental right available even to a delinquent employee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once the name is considered for promotion, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee are required to be kept in a “Sealed Cover” obviously for the reason that if the employee is ultimately found to be not guilty and the charges set out against him are found as “not established”, he may be promoted immediately to the next higher post.” (Emphasis supplied). 12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 , especially in paragraph nos. 47 and 58 as under : “47. Every officer has a right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 to a higher post subject to eligibility, provided he is within the zone of consideration. But the question is as to the manner in which his case is to be considered. This aspect is a matter of considerable importance in service jurisprudence as it deals with “fairness” in the matter of consideration for promotion under Article 16. We shall therefore refer to the current legal position. 58. From the above judgments, the following principles can be summarised : (1) Under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be “considered” for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere “consideration” for promotion that is important but the “consideration” must be “fair” according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. (2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fides. It is not the mere “consideration” for promotion that is important but the “consideration” must be “fair” according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. (2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fides. (3) Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can be taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while passing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness. (4) If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate to remarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or so on, then those remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time, particularly if there are no such remarks during the period before his promotion. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement. (5) If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether. (6) Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied upon even if no opportunity was given to represent against them before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.” (Emphasis supplied). 13. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704 especially in paragraph no. 11 as under : “11. Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefor. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the Bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.” (Emphasis supplied). Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the Bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.” (Emphasis supplied). 14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar and others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 513 especially in paragraph no. 13 as under : “13. Although a person has no fundamental right of promotion in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he has a fundamental right to be considered therefor. An effective and meaningful consideration is postulated thereby. The terms and conditions of service of an employee including his right to be considered for promotion indisputably are governed by the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied). 15. In view of the aforesaid decisions, there is no right vested with the original writ petitioner to get the promotion. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) and that too, without quashing the minutes of the meeting dated 01.07.1998 of the Screening Committee, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 16. We therefore, remand the matter to the appellant-University to consider the case of the employee namely Dr. Sitaram Sahu, for the promotion from the post of Reader to the post of Professor keeping in mind the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission Regulations 1991, the Universities Act, the other rules, regulations and the governmental policies etc. applicable to the facts of the present case. This decision shall be taken without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment as well as without being influenced by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 594 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016. The decision will be taken on its own merits. applicable to the facts of the present case. This decision shall be taken without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment as well as without being influenced by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 594 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016. The decision will be taken on its own merits. If the legal heir wants to approach the University for any personal hearing, the said legal heir will be heard by this appellant, but, in no case the decision will be taken later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With these observations, we hereby, modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the aforesaid extent. In view of the final disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No. 2314 of 2017 also stands disposed of.