JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. The instant writ application has been filed commanding upon the respondents for shifting the date of recommendation of promotion of the petitioner to the post of University Professor from 18.11.1997 to February, 1991 by treating his date of appointment as 16.02.1979 and further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.06.1997, whereby the petitioner has been communicated by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University that the Commission has not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion as University Professor. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 19.08.1996 sent to the Commission vide forwarding letter having reference dated 07.09.1996. Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus to consider his case for promotion under 16 years' time bound promotion Scheme with effect from 16.02.1995 alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as has been described in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 16.02.1979, in the subject of Botany by the Notification dated 07.02.1979. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader vide Notification dated 24.05.1997, the date of promotion to the post of Reader under 10 years' time bound promotion Scheme was shifted from 18.11.1991 to 16.02.1989. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee for promotion to the post of the Reader under 8 years' merit promotion Scheme and finally vide Notification dated 27.01.1998, the petitioner was given promotion as Reader with effect from 16.02.1987. The petitioner applied for promotion to the post of University Professor under 16/25 years' Time bound Promotion, which was recommended by the Screening Committee to be given with effect from 18.11.1997 but the same was not sent to the Commission for approval. Again, a Screening Committee was constituted whose recommendation was subsequently sent to the Commission but the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner alongwith one Dr. Govind Kumar Pandey had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.2146 of 1997 (R) for promotion to the post of University Professor, which was withdrawn so far as the present petitioner is concerned with liberty to avail other remedies. The petitioner has filed representation on 24.06.1997, but the said representation did not evoke any response from the respondents. Govind Kumar Pandey had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.2146 of 1997 (R) for promotion to the post of University Professor, which was withdrawn so far as the present petitioner is concerned with liberty to avail other remedies. The petitioner has filed representation on 24.06.1997, but the said representation did not evoke any response from the respondents. On being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as University Professor with effect from 16.02.1995 in the light of the provisions of Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner for Time Bound Promotion to the post of University Professor under 16 years' Time Bound Promotion Scheme should have been made on the recommendation, which should have been made with effect from 16.02.1995 instead of 18.11.1997 and the anomaly, which was apparent in the recommendation made by the Screening Committee, has deprived the petitioner of his rightful claim being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that if February, 1979 is taken for consideration as the date of appointment of the petitioner, then the petitioner completes 16 years in February, 1995 as per the Statute, 1986. 4. Repudiating the assertions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, wherein, it has been submitted that the demand of the petitioner has already been redressed by the University. The recommendation of the Screening Committee for promotion to the petitioner has already been sent to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) vide letter dated 07.04.2006 and on receiving positive recommendation from JPSC the matter would be placed before the Syndicate and thereafter, it will be sent to the H.R.D. Department. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein, it has been submitted that the J.P.S.C. has only power to grant concurrence/non-concurrence to the report of the Screening Committee. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein, it has been submitted that the J.P.S.C. has only power to grant concurrence/non-concurrence to the report of the Screening Committee. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University vide his letter dated 07.04.2006, sent the recommendation/non-recommendation of the Screening Committee of 9 persons including the petitioner by which the name of the petitioner was not recommended with a note “pending due to infirmity in the date of joining and the date of promotion”. 6. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner joined the post on 16.02.1979 and confirmed in service with effect from 18.11.1981. The Bihar State University (Constituent College Service Commission, Patna) had recommended his name for promotion under 8 years' merit promotion Scheme by treating his date of joining, 16.02.1979, which is evident from letter dated 28.11.1997. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 1and 2, stating therein, that the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Screening Committee, which has been annexed as Annexure-A. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide Memo dated 07.02.1979 on purely temporary basis and his service was terminated from time to time and he was terminated with effect from 05.05.1980 vide memo dated 17.04.1980 for one day and thereafter, reappointed on 07.05.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was again terminated and re-appointed vide Notification dated 18.11.1981. It is wrong to say that the petitioner has completed 17 years of qualifying service, rather, he completes 13 years 2 months' only on 17.02.1995 taking into consideration his date of confirmation in services on 18.11.1981. The Screening Committee while considering the matter of promotion of the petitioner remarked that pending due to infirmity in the said date of joining and date of promotion, the Committee could not recommend the name of the petitioner to the J.P.S.C. 8. A supplementary affidavit dated 12.06.2017 has been filed by the petitioner, stating, therein, that the Giridih College, Giridih in which the petitioner has been appointed as lecturer on 16.02.1979 became constituent College on 04.02.1976, which is evident from the Notification dated 12.02.1976, issued under the signature of the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi as per Annexure-S/1. A supplementary affidavit dated 12.06.2017 has been filed by the petitioner, stating, therein, that the Giridih College, Giridih in which the petitioner has been appointed as lecturer on 16.02.1979 became constituent College on 04.02.1976, which is evident from the Notification dated 12.02.1976, issued under the signature of the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi as per Annexure-S/1. Pursuant to the interview conducted by the respondents authorities, the petitioner has been issued appointment letter dated 07.02.1979, issued under the signature of the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. The Notification of the Ranchi University, Ranchi, dated 29.05.1997 makes it amply clear that the petitioner's date of joining is 16.02.1979 and his date of confirmation in service is 18.11.1981 as evident from Annexure-S/10. The petitioner has also referred to the decision vide Annexure-S/15, where the similar issue of date of initial appointment of similarly placed persons have been decided. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent-University has vociferously submitted that this case may be disposed of in the light of the decision rendered in W.P. (S) No. 3375 of 2016 and batch of cases. In pursuance to the order dated 27th of July, 2017, learned counsel for the Respondent-University as well as learned counsel for the Respondent-JPSC was directed to obtain instructions as to whether in pursuance to the judgment dated 01.05.2017, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3375 of 2016 and batch of cases, any Committee has been constituted. Learned counsel for the Respondent-University has brought to the notice of the Court that a Committee has been formed vide Notification of the Higher Technical Skill Development Department. Learned counsel for the University further submits that the report of the Screening Committee dated 30.11.2005 vide Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated without challenge being thrown to the recommendation/report of the Screening Committee dated 30.11.2005 in respect of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent-J.P.S.C. has assiduously submitted that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted ignoring the statutory provisions under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme and similarly, learned counsel for the Commission has also referred to the decision rendered in W.P. (S) No. 536 of 2007, wherein, this Court has been pleased to dismiss the writ application of similarly placed petitioner. 11. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that since in pursuance to the judgment dated 01.05.2017, rendered in W.P. (S) No. 3375 of 2016 and batch of cases a Committee has been constituted, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-University by producing the relevant documents within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and the respondent-University on receipt of the application, shall provide opportunity to the petitioner to furnish any other documents, necessary for deciding the case of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner furnishes all the relevant documents, the respondent-University shall do well to refer the matter to the Committee, which shall decide the case within four months thereafter and the decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that if the decision goes in favour of the petitioner, then all the consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.