JUDGMENT : I.A. No.3751 of 2019: This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 199 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3751 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 199 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.309 of 2019 5. The instant appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5582 of 2010 whereby and where under the decision of the State authority as contained in order dated 07.09.2010 has been quashed and set aside by which the claim of the petitioner regarding fixation of his salary in UGC scale and payment of arrears of salary has been rejected and so far as other relief’s i.e., for a direction upon the respondents to fix, grant and pay the salary to the petitioner in the revised UGC scale of lecturer along with admissible allowance w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and pay the arrears of difference of salary in the revised scale and also for direction upon the respondents to pay current salary to the petitioner in the revised UGC scale along with the admissible allowance, have been remanded to the concerned respondents for taking decision afresh. 6. The brief facts of the case which would be required to be referred herein are as under :- The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as Lecturer in G.C. Jain Commerce College, Chaibasa on 06.04.1981 on temporary basis. His services were regularized by order of the Vice Chancellor vide notification dated 30.07.1991. His services were confirmed by the decision of the Syndicate of Ranchi University in its meeting held on 04.01.1997, w.e.f. 01.03.1982, along with other teachers, which was notified on 29.05.1997. His services were regularized by order of the Vice Chancellor vide notification dated 30.07.1991. His services were confirmed by the decision of the Syndicate of Ranchi University in its meeting held on 04.01.1997, w.e.f. 01.03.1982, along with other teachers, which was notified on 29.05.1997. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997(R) for fixation of his pay in the pay scale of Rs.700 – 1600/- from the date of his confirmation of service but during the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities have come out with an order on 09.08.1997 cancelling the confirmation of the services of the writ petitioner as lecturer. In consequence thereof, the writ petitioner questioned the order dated 09.08.1997 by way of filing amendment application which was allowed and finally the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2006 wherein the office order dated 09.08.1997 was quashed with a direction upon the Ranchi University that if the University wishes to proceed against the petitioner, it may do so within three months after proper notice and hearing him. The writ petitioner was also given liberty to make representation raising his grievance which will be considered and disposed of by passing speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petitioner then filed detailed representation on 18.05.2006 to the Registrar, Ranchi University. Finally an order was passed on 30.08.2008 whereby and where under Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University gave a conclusive finding to the effect that the writ petitioner was appointed long back in the year 1981 and his services have been regularized and finally set at rest and therefore any disturbance in his service would not be proper and justified. However, the date of joining of the writ petitioner was shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 as also it was ordered that the pay fixation of the writ petitioner be fixed in old and revised UGC pay scale on provisional basis on approval from the Human Resources Development Department. However, the date of joining of the writ petitioner was shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 as also it was ordered that the pay fixation of the writ petitioner be fixed in old and revised UGC pay scale on provisional basis on approval from the Human Resources Development Department. The Ranchi University also came out with a notification on 01.08.2009 in terms of the direction passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997(R) whereby and where under the order of confirmation of services of the writ petitioner as Lecturer has been notified to be withdrawn w.e.f. 09.08.1997 with a partial modification in the date of joining of the writ petitioner which has been shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981. When in spite of the representation made by the writ petitioner his pay was not fixed in the old and revised UGC pay scale, he moved before this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 845 of 2010 and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.03.2010 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to ensure that the decision is taken in this regard and communicated to the University within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the direction passed in W.P.(S) No. 845 of 2010, the writ petitioner filed representation before the respondent authorities but when no decision was taken on the representation, a petition for initiating proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 361 of 2010, however, during pendency of the contempt proceeding, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected regarding fixation of his pay in UGC scale and payment of arrears of salary vide order dated 07.09.2010, which is the subject matter before the writ court and order passed by the writ court has been assailed in the present intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III, appearing for the appellant-State, while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, has submitted that though the writ petitioner was appointed on 06.04.1981, he was not having the requisite eligibility criteria. 7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III, appearing for the appellant-State, while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, has submitted that though the writ petitioner was appointed on 06.04.1981, he was not having the requisite eligibility criteria. However, he being an appearing candidate in the post graduate examination, was allowed to participate in the process of selection but on the date of appointment, since he was not having requisite qualification, therefore, his appointment would be void ab initio and once the appointment is void ab initio, the writ petitioner cannot claim pay scale, rather he has got no right to hold the post. He further submits that learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter while interfering with the impugned decision dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department and as such, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1 has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking the plea that it is admitted that on the date of appearing in the process of selection or the date of appointment, he was not having the post graduate degree in the subject, however, being the appearing candidate he was selected on 06.04.1981 but immediately thereafter he has got the post-graduation degree i.e., on 23.04.1981 and taking into this aspect of the matter, the Vice Chancellor by taking decision for absorption of the services of the writ petitioner along with the others who were appointed on or before 28.02.1982 on regular basis with the approval of the Chancellor in exercise of power conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Inter University Board Act, 1981, the services of the writ petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 01.03.1982, a copy of the same has been sent before the Secretary to the Governor of Bihar. He further submits that the aforesaid decision was placed before the Syndicate and in pursuance to the decision taken by the Syndicate, the services of the writ petitioner along with others have been confirmed which was notified on 29.05.1997. However, the confirmation of the services of the writ petitioner was cancelled which was questioned by the writ petitioner before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997. However, the confirmation of the services of the writ petitioner was cancelled which was questioned by the writ petitioner before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997. By order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997, the order of cancellation of confirmation of the services of the writ petitioner dated 09.08.1997 was quashed and set aside with a liberty to the University that if they wishes to proceed, it may be within a period of three months, after providing an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. Simultaneously, the writ petitioner was also granted liberty to make representation for UGC pay scale and in terms thereof, the Vice Chancellor passed the order on 26.08.2008 by which the order of cancellation of confirmation of services of the writ petitioner was recalled by shifting the date of appointment from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, i.e., the day when the writ petitioner was having the requisite eligibility criteria of post-graduation degree but claim pertaining to UGC pay scale had not been considered and therefore contempt petition was filed and during pendency of the contempt petition, a decision was taken by the authority by rejecting the claim and finally the claim was rejected about fixation of UGC pay scale and disbursement of difference of arrears of salary. He, in the backdrop of this factual aspect, submits that once the Vice Chancellor has taken decision by cancelling the decision by which the confirmation in service has been recalled and finally the date of appointment of the writ petitioner was shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, by virtue of an order passed way back on 26.08.2008 with a copy also to the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, but they have chosen not to question the same while on the other hand, the Secretary of the Department has not considered the claim of the writ petitioner for holding him entitled to get the UGC pay scale which is absolutely illegal and improper as because the writ petitioner when allowed to continue in service right from 23.04.1981 by shifting his date of appointment from 06.04.1981, therefore, the date of valid appointment of the writ petitioner would be 23.04.1981 and hence, now it is not available for the State authorities to question the appointment which was initially rectified from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981. He further submits that the State authorities is considering the appointment of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 06.04.1981 but actually by the decision of the Vice Chancellor who is the appointing authority, his appointment would be treated to be on the post w.e.f. 23.04.1981, the said decision has never been questioned by the State authorities although in pursuance to the said order the Registrar, Ranchi University has come out with a notification on 01.08.2009 by rectifying the date of appointment from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, a copy of the said notification was also communicated to the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand and hence it cannot be said that the State authorities were not knowing about the shifting of the date of appointment of the writ petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 and as such, once the date of appointment has been shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, the date on which the writ petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post, his appointment cannot be said to be void ab initio. 9. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, has found from the material available on record certain admitted facts :- (i) The writ petitioner was appointed on 06.04.1981 by virtue of an advertisement and interview held on 05.04.1981 by the Governing Body of the college in which he was found to be successful and in consequence thereof, offer of appointment was issued and he joined on 06.04.1981 in the said college. (ii) The college in question was converted to constituent unit under the Ranchi University. He was transferred from G.C. Jain Commerce College, Chaibasa to J.L.N. College, Chakradharpur vide office memo dated 08.02.1990. (iii) The issue crept up about absorption/regularization of temporary lecturers after taking over of the college. The matter went before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to constitute a Commission known as Hon’ble Mr. Justice Agrawal Commission wherein certain decisions have been taken about services of one or the other lecturers who have been appointed prior to taking over the college under the University as a constituent college. The matter went before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to constitute a Commission known as Hon’ble Mr. Justice Agrawal Commission wherein certain decisions have been taken about services of one or the other lecturers who have been appointed prior to taking over the college under the University as a constituent college. (iv) The writ petitioner was found to be appointed prior to 20.02.1982, the Rule in vogue at that time, therefore, with the approval of the Chancellor under the provision of Section 5 (2) of the Inter University Board Act, 1981, he has been absorbed in service w.e.f. 06.04.1981. (v) The decision of absorption of the services of the writ petitioner as also the others vide notification dated 29.05.1997, as referred above, was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting dated 04.01.1997 and the services of teaching staffs have been confirmed, in which name of the writ petitioner finds figure at Sl. No.26 showing the date of appointment as 06.04.1981 and date of confirmation as 01.03.1982. (vi) The Vice Chancellor, subsequent to the same, has come out with an order dated 09.08.1997 by which the confirmation of the writ petitioner as lecturer in the Department of Economics, G.C. Jain Commerce College, Chaibasa, has been cancelled. (vii) The writ petitioner, at the time of cancellation of the confirmation in service, had already before this Court under its writ jurisdiction vide C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997 (R) for seeking a direction for fixation of his pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- but during pendency of the said writ petition since the decision has come about cancellation of confirmation of service, the same has also been assailed by way of leave in an amendment petition. Finally, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 27.03.2006 whereby and where under the following directions have been passed :- “6. In my opinion, before passing the impugned order dated 9.8.1997 (Annexure-15), an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner, which having not been done, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said office order dated 9.8.1997 is quashed. 7. In my opinion, before passing the impugned order dated 9.8.1997 (Annexure-15), an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner, which having not been done, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said office order dated 9.8.1997 is quashed. 7. If the University wishes to proceed against the petitioner, it may do so, but within three months, by issuing a proper notice, informing him the grounds of proposed action and after hearing him, may pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law. 8. Petitioner will also be at liberty to make representation raising his grievance, which will be considered and disposed of by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.” (viii) The writ petitioner made a representation in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997(R), in pursuance thereto the Vice Chancellor took a decision on 26.08.2008 considering the fact about the date of appointment of the writ petition as on 06.04.1981 as also the fact that on 06.04.1981 the day when the writ petitioner joined as Lecturer was not having post-graduation degree, however, he was declared pass in M.Com examination in the result published on 23.04.1981 and therefore, decision was taken to shift the joining date of the petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981. (ix) The Vice Chancellor has taken such decision in the light of the earlier decision taken with respect to the promotion granted to Dr. P. Tiwary and Sri Nagandra Prasad to the post of Reader w.e.f. 14.11.80 under 13/18 years promotion scheme by the University by shifting their date of promotion from 26.11.1980 and 01.06.1983 respectively on the basis of degree affiliation granted to Marwari College and Doranda College on 27.08.1966 and 01.06.1965 respectively. The aforesaid decision was subsequently upheld by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1845 of 1994 (R) by its order dated 05.04.1996. (x) The Vice Chancellor has taken further decision on the basis of observation made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2517 of 1998 (R) whereby and whereunder the Ranchi University has come out with the stand challenging the appointment of one Dr. S.Pandey to the post of Reader by one Dr. Akhtar Jahan Badie on the ground that appointment of Dr. S.Pandey to the post of Reader by one Dr. Akhtar Jahan Badie on the ground that appointment of Dr. S.Pandey has been made in the year 1981 and was confirmed but this Court has declined to grant such permission to question the appointment of Dr. S.Pandey after lapse of 17 years and therefore, the Vice Chancellor has taken conscious decision on the basis of the observation made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1845 of 1994 (R) by shifting the date of appointment of the petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and, therefore, after lapse of about more than 25 years as on 26.08.2008 it would not be proper to question the appointment of the writ petitioner. (xi) In pursuance to the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar came out with a notification on 01.08.2009 notifying the shifting of date of appointment of the writ petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981. It is evident from the said notification dated 01.08.2009 as has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, copy of which was sent before the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. (xii) It is also admitted that the writ petitioner again approached to this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 845 of 2010 for grant of new pay scale which was directed to be considered by the Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure-10) and in pursuance to the aforesaid order decision has been taken rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for making payment as per 4th UGC pay scale and the differences of arrears of salary. 10. This Court, after going through the factual aspect as enumerated hereinabove and considering the finding recorded by the writ court, is of the view that the following questions are to be answered :- (a) Whether the issues which have been settled on 23.04.1981, can be allowed to be agitated after lapse of considerable period? (b) Whether the State Government has power to question the decision of the Vice Chancellor that too when such decision has already been communicated to the State authority? (c) Whether the State can deny the claim as per UGC Regulation? (b) Whether the State Government has power to question the decision of the Vice Chancellor that too when such decision has already been communicated to the State authority? (c) Whether the State can deny the claim as per UGC Regulation? (d) Whether denying the claim as per UGC Regulation, can the petitioner be extended the old pay scale ? 11. In all the four issues, the foremost issue to be dealt with is the question pertaining to power of the State Government in sitting over the decision of the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, the same is being dealt with by this Court, hereunder as :- This Court deems it fit and proper to deal with this issue with the aid of the applicable provision which is “The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1976). The important provision in the facts and circumstances is the provision of Section 6 which deals about the teaching of the University which reads hereunder as :- 6. Teaching of the University – (1) All recognized teaching in connection with University courses shall be conducted through the Colleges and through departments maintained by the University, subject to general control of the Vice-Chancellor, and shall include lecturing, work in laboratories or workshops, and other teaching work conducted in the University and the College by the University Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other teachers in accordance with any syllabus prescribed by the Regulations. (2) The authorities responsible for organizing such teaching shall be prescribed by the Statutes. (3) The courses and curricula shall be prescribed by the Regulation. (4) In addition to recognized teaching, tutorial and other supplementary instruction shall be given in the colleges subject to the control of the University or in the department maintained by the University. (5) (i) It shall not be lawful for the University or for any College to maintain classes for the purposes of preparing students for admission to the University. (ii) In the Faculties of Arts, Science and Commerce, the University shall prescribe the syllabus, conduct teaching, hold examinations and publish results of graduate and above standards : Provided that until separate arrangement for Intermediate Education is made, the college shall under the general direction of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council continue the teaching work etc., of this standard. (iii) The graduate course shall be of three years? duration. (iii) The graduate course shall be of three years? duration. It is evident from the aforesaid provision which provides that all recognized teaching in connection with University courses shall be conducted through the Colleges and through departments maintained by the University, subject to general control of the Vice Chancellor, and shall include lecturing, work in laboratories or workshops and other teaching work conducted in the University and the College by the University Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other teachers in accordance with any syllabus prescribed by the Regulations. The authorities responsible for organizing such teaching shall be prescribed by the Statutes. In Section 9 reference of Chancellor has been made that it will be the Governor of the State who will be the head of the University and President of the Senate. It is evident from the provision that the Chancellor has got power to annul any proceeding or order of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, Statute, Ordinance or for which adequate reason is lacking. The Chancellor is also having the power to transfer the officers and teachers of the University from one University to another or in the same University on the same post or on any other equivalent post. It further speaks about the power to question the decision of the Chancellor by filing representation before the Chancellor who will thereafter pass an order. Section 10 speaks about the Vice Chancellor which reads hereunder as :- “10. The Vice-Chancellor. – (1) No person shall be deemed to be qualified to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor unless such person is, in the opinion of the Chancellor, reputed for his scholarship and academic interest, and no person shall be deemed to be qualified to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University unless such person is, in the opinion of the Chancellor, reputed for his scholarship in Sanskrit or has made notable contribution to Sanskrit education. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (3)(a) The Vice-Chancellor shall be wholetime officer and shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (3)(a) The Vice-Chancellor shall be wholetime officer and shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. (b) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section the Vice-Chancellor shall ordinarily hold office for a term of three years and on the expiry of the said term he may be reappointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government and he shall hold office at the pleasure of the Chancellor for a term not exceeding three years. ¼4½ ¼1½ mudh fu;qfDr ds vU; cU/kst vkSj 'kŸkZ jkT; ljdkj ds ijke'kZ ls dqykf/kifr vo/kkfjr djsaxsA ¼2½ tgk¡ dqyifr ds :Ik esa fu;qfDr O;fDr dsUnz ;k jkT; ljdkj ;k fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ;k fdlh vU; lkszr ls isa'ku ikrk gks ogk¡ mls ns; isa'ku dh jkf'k dks mls ns; isa'ku dk va'k ekuk tk;sxkA (5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University, the Chairman of the Syndicate and of the Academic Council and shall be entitled to be present and speak at any meeting of any authority or other body of the University and shall in the absence of the Chancellor preside over meetings of the Senate and of any convocation of the University: Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall not vote in the first instance but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. (6) The Vice-Chancellor shall subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances have power to make appointment to posts within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of the ministerial staff and other servants of the University not being teachers and officers of the University and have control and full disciplinary powers over such staff and servants. ¼7½ dqyifr dks flusV] mldh lfefr;ksa ,oa mi&lfefrksa] flUMhdsV] mldh lfefr;ksa ,oa mi&lfefrksa] fo}r ifj"kn ,oa fo'ofo|ky; ds vU; izkf/kdkjksa dh cSBd cqykus dh 'kfDr gksxh ,oa og mu cSBdksa dk insu lHkkifr gksxk rFkk viuh vyH;rk ds dkj.k fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh dks cSBd cqykus ,oa mldk lHkkifrRo djus gsrq izkf/k—r dj ldsxkA (8) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers to visit and inspect the Colleges and buildings, laboratories, workshops and equipments thereof and any other institution associated with the University, and he shall have the right of making an inquiry or causing an inquiry to be made, in like manner in respect of any matter connected with such Colleges and institutions. (9) The Vice-Chancellor shall address the Principal of such College with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry and, thereupon, it shall be the duty of such Principal to communicate the views of the Vice-Chancellor to the governing body of the College and to report to the Vice-Chancellor such action, if any, taken or proposed to be taken upon the result of such inspection or inquiry. (10) It shall be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor to issue, from time to time, any direction to the Principal of a College in which post-graduate teaching conducted under clause (16) of section 4 and such Principal shall comply with all such directions accordingly. (11) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general control over the educational arrangement of University and shall be responsible for the discipline of the University. It shall be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor to take all steps which are necessary for maintaining the academic standard and administrative discipline of the University. (12) If at any time, except when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take such immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or Academic Council by or under this Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he deems fit, and shall report the action taken by him to such authority which may either confirm the action so taken or disapprove of it. (13) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see whether the proceeding of the University are carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance, the Regulations and the Rules or not and the Vice-Chancellor shall report to the Chancellor every proceeding which is not in conformity with such provisions. For so long as the orders of the Chancellor are not received on the report of the Vice-Chancellor that the proceeding of the University is not in accordance with this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance, the Regulation and the Rules, the Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers to stay the proceeding reported against. ¼14½ dqyifr dks fo'ofo|ky; }kjk ?kksf"kr fdlh foHkkx ;k egkfo|ky; ds fdlh f'k{kd dks dqykf/kifr }kjk Lohd`r ekxZ funsZ'kd fl)kUr ds vuqlkj ml fo'ofo|ky; }kjk ?kksf"kr fdlh vU; foHkkx ;k egkfo|ky; ds fdlh led{k in ij LFkkukUrfjr djus dh 'kfDr gksxhA Illustration-‘equivalent post’ means Reader and Principal in the pay-scale of Reader, Professor and Principal in the pay- scale or Professor. (15) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as are conferred or imposed on him by this Act, the Statutes, the Regulations or the Rules. (16) The Vice-Chancellor shall have overall responsibility in maintaining good academic standard and promoting the efficiency and good order of the University. (17) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, or the Statutes the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint officer (other than the Pro-Vice- Chancellor) with the approval of the Chancellor, and teachers and shall define their duties; (18) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to take disciplinary action against all employees of the University including officers and teachers of the University; (19) An appeal shall lie to the Chancellor against the order of the Vice-Chancellor imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal from service or reduction in rank. It is evident from the provision as contained under Section 10 that the Vice Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University, the Chairman of the Syndicate and of the Academic Council. Section 18 deals with the Senate which consists of members as ex-officio members, life members, representative members and nominated members. It is evident from the provision as contained under Section 10 that the Vice Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University, the Chairman of the Syndicate and of the Academic Council. Section 18 deals with the Senate which consists of members as ex-officio members, life members, representative members and nominated members. Section 21 deals with the powers and duties of making the statute and amending or repealing the same, of considering the statutes and the Regulations, amending or repealing the same, of passing resolution after having considered the annual report, of exercising the powers for the purpose of control in colleges and Tols, and of superintendence which include affiliation and disaffiliation of colleges. While Section 22 deals with the provision to have a Syndicate which shall be the Executive Council of the University and it shall consist of several members having the power to hold, control and manage the property and funds of the University etc. 12. The admitted fact herein as reflected is that the writ petitioner had joined on 06.04.1981 by way of absorption on regular basis with the approval of the Chancellor under Section 5 (2) of the Inter University Board Act, 1981. The Services of the writ petitioner was confirmed in pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate at its meeting held on 04.01.1997 as would appear from notification dated 29.05.1997 annexed as Annexure-2. 13. The Inter University Board Act, 1981, has been enacted by virtue of Bihar Amendment No.27, 1982, with an object to advice to the Chancellor or the State Government. It is evident from the provision of Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Inter University Board Act, 1981 whereby and whereunder the power has been vested upon the Chancellor to issue direction which would be binding upon the University. The service of the writ petitioner was absorbed on the ground that he was found to be appointed on or before 28.02.1982 i.e., on 06.04.1981 and the service was also confirmed by order of the Vice Chancellor/Syndicate, however, the same was cancelled but the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University took a decision by shifting the date of appointment of the writ petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 on account of the fact that as on 06.04.1981 the writ petitioner was not holding the post-graduation degree which he obtained on 23.04.1981. The said decision of the Vice Chancellor, according to us, suffers from no infirmity, it is for the reason that the decision was taken on the basis of the required eligibility and educational qualification which the writ petitioner was possessing on 23.04.1981 and further, on the similar circumstances while considering the case of appointment by way of promotion extended to Dr. P.Tiwary and Sri Nagandra Prasad to the post of Reader by shifting the date of promotion with effect from 26.11.1980 and 01.06.1983 respectively, the day on which the concerned colleges from where the aforesaid two persons had got the degree was affiliated i.e., affiliation granted to Marwari College and Doranda College on 27.08.1966 and 01.06.1965 respectively. Further, the said decision has subsequently been upheld by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2517 of 1998 (R) by its order dated 05.04.1996. It further requires to refer herein that again the appointment of one Dr. S.Pandey to the post of Reader had been questioned by one Dr. Akhtar Jahan Badie by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1845 of 1994 (R) but this Court while disposing of the writ petition had declined to interfere with the order of promotion granted to Dr. S.Pandey after considerable period of 17 years. 14. However, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.c.-III has tried to distinguish the cases of Dr. P.Tiwary and Sri Nagandra Prasad by making submission that those were the cases of promotion and therefore the present case since pertains to the direct recruitment as Lecturer hence the said principle would not be applicable but we are not in agreement with such submission for the reason that the appointment, if made by way of promotion, it will also have the same principle available for making appointment through direct recruitment. Since in the case of Dr. P.Tiwary and Dr. Nagandra Prasad, who had got degree from Marwari College and Doranda College but during the relevant time these colleges were not affiliated however, subsequently these colleges were affiliated with effect from 27.08.1966 and 01.06.1965 respectively, therefore, the order of promotion was shifted to 26.11.1980 and 01.06.1983 respectively on the basis of affiliation granted to Marwari College and Doranda College from 27.08.1966 and 01.06.1965 respectively by counting the period of 13/18 years from the date of affiliation which is the minimum period of tenure required for Lecturers who are willing to get promotion to the post of Reader. Further, on the ground that Vice Chancellor being the authority, has taken decision by shifting the date of appointment of the writ petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 and in pursuance thereto, notification was also issued on 01.08.2009 with a copy to the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand and as per the power conferred to the Vice Chancellor under the Act, 1976, the Vice Chancellor, being the controlling authority, if made an appointment on the basis of the decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.01.1997 for confirmation of the services of the writ petitioner along with others, the State Government having not been conferred with any power under the statute, cannot be said to be an authority to interfere with the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor, as has been done in the instant case by passing the impugned order. 15. So far as the other issues, i.e., the issue having been settled by shifting the date of appointment of the writ petitioner from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, the claim of the writ petitioner for UGC pay scale, which has been denied in the present case, this Court is of the view that the State authority has interfered with the decision of the Vice Chancellor so far as it relates to shifting of the date of appointment from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 and confirmation in service holding it not legal, inter alia on the ground that the appointment of the writ petitioner has not been based upon advertisement notified in the daily newspaper, no selection committee was constituted and as such no panel was prepared, there was no recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission and as on the date of appointment i.e., on 06.04.1981, the writ petitioner was not having the degree of post-graduation. 16. 16. So far as the grounds pertaining to advertisement notifying the post for accepting application, non-constitution of selection committee and no recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission is concerned, this Court is of the view that these are the instances of alleged commission of irregularity but the question herein is that when the decision was taken by a committee known as Agrawal Commission and by virtue of the decision taken therein with respect to absorption or regularization and if such decision has been taken for absorption of the writ petitioner in service taking into consideration the date of appointment as on 06.04.1981, the irregularity alleged to have committed will not come in the way as because the sole purpose of constitution of the Agrawal Commission is to look into the effect of taking over of the private colleges under the constitutional fold and therefore, certain guidelines have been given and in pursuance thereof, certain recommendations have also been made by the Agrawal Commission. 17. Otherwise also, it is settled position of law that if any irregularity has been committed, the same can be regularized and the same cannot be allowed to be agitated after considerable period of more than 30 years, as in the present case. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the distinction has been made in between the irregular and illegal appointment and while considering, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that if any procedural lapse is there, the same will be treated to be irregularity and if there is any irregularity, the same can be regularized. 18. 18. The irregularity so far as it relates to lack of educational qualification is concerned, admittedly, having no education qualification will amount to an illegal appointment as in the case of the State respondents herein but the question is that admittedly as on 06.04.1981 the writ petitioner was having no post-graduate degree, however, he had appeared in the examination and immediately after the date of appointment, i.e. after lapse of 17 days, he got the degree in post-graduation, and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, his date of appointment was shifted from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981 by an order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 26.08.2008 which was the decision taken in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1997 (R) and in pursuance thereto, a notification was also issued on 01.08.2009 with a copy to the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand but surprisingly, even though the decision of the Vice Chancellor dated 26.08.2008, as has been notified on 01.08.2009, has been communicated to the State authority, no decision has been taken in protest thereof either by approaching the appropriate court of law or making protest against the Chancellor. 19. Further question would be that when the Vice Chancellor has taken decision on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate in its meeting dated 04.01.1997, can the Secretary of the Department deny the pay scale at par with the UGC pay scale, which according to us, cannot be allowed to be done, it is for the reason that if the State authority is not granting the pay scale at par with the UGC pay scale, the question would be which pay scale would be extended to the writ petitioner? It is evident from the impugned order that the UGC pay scale has been denied on four grounds; first three grounds pertain to irregularity while the fourth ground pertains to not having requisite educational qualification. This Court is of the view that even though the writ petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification on 06.04.1981 but once the date of appointment has been shifted to 23.04.1981, that cannot be allowed to be questioned by the State authority. This Court is of the view that even though the writ petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification on 06.04.1981 but once the date of appointment has been shifted to 23.04.1981, that cannot be allowed to be questioned by the State authority. The reason for this is that now the writ petitioner would not be said to be an appointee of 06.04.1981, rather, after shifting the date of appointment from 06.04.1981, his date of appointment would be 23.04.1981, the day when he was possessing all requisite educational qualifications and therefore this Court is of the view that as on 23.04.1981 the appointment of the writ petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. 20. Further, it is evident from the impugned order that the Secretary, while taking such decision, has not appreciated this aspect of the matter as to what would be the status of the writ petitioner as on 23.04.1981 since the said decision of the Vice Chancellor passed upon the decision of the Syndicate, has never been questioned by the State authority and unless the same would be questioned and would be held to be illegal, the State authority cannot take decision denying the pay scale at par with the UGC pay scale to be extended in favour of the writ petitioner. It further appears from the impugned order that there is a reference of an order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 909 of 2000 reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 817 whereby and where under in para 14, 15 and 16 the process of recruitment and statute of 28.02.1982 have been discussed in detail and on the basis of that the appointment, if made contrary to the minimum educational qualification, will be said to be irregular and therefore the writ petitioner has been held not entitled for reinstatement in service but again it would be a question can the Secretary take such decision by making reference of an order passed in L.P.A. No. 909 of 2000 as because the date of appointment of the writ petitioner is no more 06.04.1981 rather it is 23.04.1981 as has been decided by the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University and in absence of any power available to the State of Jharkhand under the Act, 1976 questioning the decision of the Vice Chancellor before questioning it before the Chancellor or before any court of law, no such plea can be allowed to be taken by the authorities of the State of Jharkhand. Further it is settled that the authority is required to take decision only as per the authority but the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to apprise us any statutory provision under which the State Government has conferred with the power under applicable University Law and therefore, according to us, the State authority cannot look into the legality and propriety of the decision of Vice Chancellor. We have reached to the above conclusion on the basis of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another vs. Sardari Lal and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 253 wherein at paragraph 3 it has been held which reads hereunder as:- “3. Under the University Statutes, Statute 41 deals with the grant of accelerated increment and allowance and power is conferred upon the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar. Under the University Statutes, Statute 41 deals with the grant of accelerated increment and allowance and power is conferred upon the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar. The power of the State Government under Section 25 of the Act to get the accounts of the University audited will not include within its sweep any power to nullify a decision of the appropriate authority of the University in the matter of grant of accelerated increment or allowance which has been specifically conferred upon the authorities of the University. The power of the State Government under Section 23 of the Act is to the effect that the State Government may provide such amounts by way of grants for meeting the capital recurring or other expenditure of the University as it may deem fit. Merely because the State Government has been conferred power to provide amounts by way of grant for meeting the expenditure of the University will not clothe the State Government with any further control in the matter of expenditure or the service conditions of the employees which is specifically provided for in the Statute itself and the Statute confers powers on the Vice-Chancellor, the Syndicate or the Registrar and not on the State Government. The University is an autonomous body and, therefore, the State Government will not be entitled to interfere with the internal administration of the University notwithstanding the fact that the State Government is the funding body until and unless the University Statutes provide for the same or there is any Act of Legislation conferring that power on the State Government. In course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the State Government brought to our notice the provisions of Section 10 of the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act in support of the contention that since the Vice-Chancellor has certain power of control and that power must be held to be with the State Government as the Vice-Chancellor exercises that power in aid and advice of the State Government. This provision is not there either in the Statute of the Guru Nanak Dev University or Punjab University. But even for Haryana and Punjab Agricultural University also the aforesaid power on a plain reading cannot be held to be conferring power on the State Government to take any decision in the internal administration of the University which the Statute itself does not provide. But even for Haryana and Punjab Agricultural University also the aforesaid power on a plain reading cannot be held to be conferring power on the State Government to take any decision in the internal administration of the University which the Statute itself does not provide. The impugned judgment in C.A. No. 5088/96 clearly indicates that no provision has been pointed out which may show that the Government is entitled to interfere with the internal administration of the University or the grant of benefit to the employees.” 21. Another question is that if the writ petitioner would be denied the pay scale of UGC, then what pay scale he is entitled to? Admittedly, he cannot be allowed to extend the benefit of old pay scale since after implementation of the UGC pay scale, there is no existence of the old pay scale and so long as the writ petitioner’s appointment is not declared to be nullity or illegal by the authority or court of law, he cannot be denied UGC pay scale. 22. This Court, after going through the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, has found there from that the learned Single Judge has also considered this aspect of the matter about shifting the date from 06.04.1981 to 23.04.1981, the day when the writ petitioner was having minimum qualification and therefore, has quashed the decision dated 07.09.2010. 23. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 24. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 25. Consequently, I.A. No. 3752 of 2019 filed for stay of the operation of the impugned order/judgment dated 24.08.2018 also stands dismissed.