JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5770 of 2017, whereby and where under, order dated 09.08.2017 issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi regarding non-acceptance of joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 on the ground of expiry of the lien, has been held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly has been quashed and set aside and respondent-Ranchi University has been directed to accept the joining of the petitioner to the post of Reader (now Associate Professor) in Political Science under Ranchi University, Ranchi along with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of that order. 2. The brief facts of the case, which require to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are hereunder as: The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was initially appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) in Ranchi College, Ranchi, a constituent college under Ranchi University, Ranchi on the recommendation made by the erstwhile University Selection Committee of the Universities and thereafter, he was granted promotion to the post of Reader (Political Science) w.e.f. 02.11.1986. During the relevant period, the erstwhile Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Registrar in different Universities within the State of Bihar and the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 having fulfilled all the requisite criteria had applied for the said post and on going through the selection process, his name was recommended for appointment as against the post of Registrar in Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, which was communicated to the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 by the University vide letter dated 19.03.2002. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 applied for extraordinary leave without pay with lien before Ranchi University, Ranchi and vide notification dated 03.04.2002 lien for a period of two years was granted to the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 enabling him to join the post of Registrar under Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 submitted his joining on 15.04.2002, which was duly accepted by the concerned authorities of the said University. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 submitted his joining on 15.04.2002, which was duly accepted by the concerned authorities of the said University. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 had again made an application, after completion of period of two years from the date of his joining before the Ranchi University, Ranchi, for extension of leave with lien and in response thereof, his lien with leave was extended from time to time and lastly vide notification dated 09.05.2006 the Ranchi University, Ranchi extended the leave with lien for a further period of one year w.e.f. 15.04.2006. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, after serving some period in Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara was transferred to L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga where he continued to serve as Registrar from April, 2003 to 21.11.2007. He was transferred to discharge his duties as Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura for the period 23.11.2007 to 31.07.2011. Thereafter, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was appointed as Pro Vice-Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga on 01.08.2011 and there from, he joined as Pro Vice-Chancellor, T.N.B. University, Bhagalpur and again transferred as Pro Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara as also discharged duties as In-charge Vice-Chancellor. He was, then, appointed as Vice-Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Bihar but on account of cancellation of the said appointment order, he was repatriated to the post of Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura on 29.12.2013. It is the case of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, despite his initial appointment having been made on temporary basis against the post of Registrar way back in the year 2002, his services was not confirmed, he made representation on 13.06.2017 before the Registrar, Ranchi University for allowing him to join against his parent post of Reader (Political Science) but terminating his lien granted to him in April, 2002, his representation was rejected by the authorities of the Ranchi University vide letter dated 09.08.2017 refusing to accept his joining to the parent post on the ground that his lien had already expired on 14.04.2007. 3. Assailing the said order dated 09.08.2017, writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5770 of 2017, had been filed by the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, which stood allowed vide order dated 09.08.2019 and is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. 3. Assailing the said order dated 09.08.2017, writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5770 of 2017, had been filed by the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, which stood allowed vide order dated 09.08.2019 and is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants-Ranchi University inter alia questioned the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that once the lien has expired on 14.04.2007, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 has got no right to claim the post, for which, the lien was granted in April, 2002. The further ground has been agitated that the lien so granted since had never been extended from 14.04.2007 and thereafter no extension of leave with lien has been obtained by the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 by seeking a direction in this regard from the competent authorities, it clarifies the position that lien will stand terminated and once lien would be terminated, the public servant claiming the post on the ground of such lien cannot be allowed to claim such post. But, this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by learned Single Judge and, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. This Court has issued notice upon the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1. In pursuant thereto, he appeared and is being represented by Mr. P.N. Sahi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 by taking aid of principle of lien, supported by statutory provision and other relevant provisions, as defined under the provisions of Clause 2(vi) of the Statute approved by the Chancellor on 20.09.1980 vide Letter dated 18.11.1980, wherein the lien has been defined, which means the title of a University servant to hold substantively, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively. Referring to such provision, it has been submitted that writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 since was holding the post of Reader, substantively, leave was granted with lien and so long as the lien has not been terminated, the lien of such public servant will remain there. Referring to such provision, it has been submitted that writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 since was holding the post of Reader, substantively, leave was granted with lien and so long as the lien has not been terminated, the lien of such public servant will remain there. Learned senior counsel further referring to Clause 7 of the Statute has submitted that the provision stipulates about the process and the effect of the lien as to under which circumstances lien will be said to have lost its force and according to writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 lien is said to have lost its force only if it is suspended as per the provision stipulated under clause 7 (3) or transferred under sub-clause (5) of this Article. But no such decision is required to be passed under the provision of clause 7 (3) (2), as such it will be a case where the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 would be said to have a valid lien and so long as the lien is in continuation the right of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 to hold the said post will be there and once the right to lien is to said to be there, the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 is to be accepted, but without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the respondent-authorities, who are appellants-Ranchi University herein, has rejected the joining which is nothing but contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. 7. In course of hearing, vacancy position on the said post as also the matter of up-gradation of the Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, in the year 2017, which was previously the constituent college of Ranchi University has been agitated and contention has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants-Ranchi University that the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was lecturer at Ranchi College, Ranchi, which has now been up-graded as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi vide Gazette notification dated 11.04.2017, as such on this ground also the Ranchi University is not in a position to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 and in that view of the matter even if any direction would be passed for joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, the joining is to be accepted by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and not by the Ranchi University. 8. This Court considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter vide order dated 29.01.2020 directed to implead Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and not by the Ranchi University. 8. This Court considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter vide order dated 29.01.2020 directed to implead Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi through its Vice-Chancellor as well as Registrar, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi as respondent nos. 3 and 4 to this appeal and copy of order was sent by way of notice to the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi. 9. Pursuant thereto, counsel for the respondents-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi has put his appearance and filed affidavit. It has been submitted that lien was granted to the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 by the appellants-Ranchi University itself and now it is open to the appellants-Ranchi University to allow joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 or not. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the minutes of decision taken on 02.08.2018, which is with regard to cadre division, assets and liabilities of the Ranchi University and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, wherein it has been agreed between them that the teaching and non-teaching staffs will be adjusted on ‘as is where is’ basis i.e. the employees working in both the universities will be adjusted in their same establishment and as such according to learned counsel, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, since was not working in the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi at the time of up-gradation, the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, in no way is responsible to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-appellants. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi at the time of up-gradation, the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, in no way is responsible to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-appellants. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, we deem it fit and proper to deal with the position of law so far as the principle of lien is concerned and for which, first we have to consider the provision of statute, as approved by the Chancellor on 20.09.1980 vide Letter dated 18.11.1980, which has been incorporated in pursuance to the provisions of Section 34(i) of the Universities Act, 1976, wherein definition of 'lien' has been given at Clause 2 (vi), which reads hereunder as: "(vi)"Lien" means the title of a University servant to hold substantively, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively;" It is evident from the aforesaid definition that "lien" means the title of a University servant to hold substantively, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively, meaning thereby when a public servant would be appointed to a post substantively he will hold lien against that permanent post, including a tenure post. 11. The other relevant provision is Clause 7 of the Statute, which reads hereunder as: "7.(1)Unless it is otherwise provided, a University servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. (2)Unless his lien is suspended under sub-clause, (3) or transferred under sub-clause (5) of this Article, a University servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post; (a) while performing the duties of the post; (b) while on deputation, or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post; (c) while on leave; and (d) while under suspension. (3)(a)The lien of a University servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively shall remain suspended, if he is appointed in a substantive capacity- (i) to a permanent post outside the grade of pay on which he is borne, or (ii) to a tenure post, or (iii) provisionally, to a post on which another University servant would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under this Article. (b) The Syndicate may, as its option, suspend the lien of a University servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, if he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign service, or in circumstances not covered by sub-clause (a) above is transferred, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, to a post in another grade of pay, and if in any of these cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent from the post on which he holds a lien for a period of not less than three years. (c) If the lien of a University servant on a post is suspended under sub-clauses (a) and (b), the post may be filed substantively and the University servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it; provided that the arrangements shall be reserved as soon as the suspended lien revives. (d) The lien of a University servant which has been suspended under sub-clause (a) above shall revive as soon as he ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (a) (i), (ii) or (iii) above. (e)The lien of a University servant which has been suspended under sub-clause (b) above shall revive as soon as he ceases to be on deputation out of India or on foreign service or to hold a post in any other grade of pay, provided that a suspended lien shall not revive if the University servant takes leave and there is reason to believe that he will, on return from leave continue to be on deputation out of India on foreign service or to hold a post in another grade of pay, and the total period of absence on duty will not fall short of three years, or that he will hold substantively a post of the nature specified in sub-clauses (a) (i), (ii) or (iii) above. (4)(a)The lien of a University servant on a post, may in no circumstances be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. (b)In a case covered by sub-clause (3)(a)(i) the suspended lien may not, except on the written request of the University servant concerned, be terminated while he remains in the University service." It is evident from the aforesaid provisions, wherein it has been provided that a university servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. The aforesaid provision further suggests that the lien to the University servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post will be there and it only ceases when on subsequent appointment, if he will be on permanent post. The other provision is in sub-clause (2), which reflects that unless the lien is suspended under sub-clause, (3) or transferred under sub-clause (5) of this Article, a University servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 7 says that the lien of a University servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively shall remain suspended, if he is appointed in a substantive capacity-(i)to a permanent post outside the grade of pay on which he is borne, or (ii)to a tenure post, or (iii)provisionally, to a post on which another University servant would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under this Article. It further provides conferring power upon the Syndicate by which lien can be suspended to University servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, if he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign service, or in circumstances not covered by sub-clause (a) above is transferred. It is further provided if the lien of University servant on a post is suspended under sub-clauses (a) and (b), the post may be filled substantively and the University servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it; provided that the arrangements shall be reserved as soon as the suspended lien revives. It is further provided if the lien of University servant on a post is suspended under sub-clauses (a) and (b), the post may be filled substantively and the University servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it; provided that the arrangements shall be reserved as soon as the suspended lien revives. It also provides that the lien of a University servant which has been suspended under sub-clause (a) above shall revive as soon as ceases to hold alien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) above. Sub-clause (4) (a) provides that the lien of a University servant on a post, may in no circumstances be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. While sub-clause (4) (b) thereof provides that in a case covered by sub-clause (3)(a)(i) the suspended lien may not, except on the written request of the University servant concerned, be terminated while he remains in the University service. It is, thus, evident from the statutory provisions, as referred herein above, that for coming to the conclusion that lien has ceased its force, an appropriate order is required to be passed either by suspending the lien or by terminating it and so long as such decision has not been taken it will be treated that the University servant is holding the lien against the said post. 12. In this regard, reference is also required to be made about the principle of lien, as has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. S.N. Tiwari & Ors, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 700 , in particular paragraph nos. 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, which are quoted hereunder as: "14.It is not the case of the State that any competent authority terminated the lien of the respondent in the parent department. There is no material made available by the State to show that the respondent had been confirmed in any permanent post and that he was holding that appointment in a substantive capacity on permanent basis. There is no material made available by the State to show that the respondent had been confirmed in any permanent post and that he was holding that appointment in a substantive capacity on permanent basis. On the other hand, even while working as homoeopathic doctor in ESI Corporation, the respondent employee obtained directions as against the State and the Directorate of Economics and Statistics Department to determine the yearwise vacancies and to make promotions from the post of Statistical Inspector to Statistical Assistant in accordance with the Rules. That order attained its finality. The same would demonstrate that the respondent employee always had a lien in the Department of Economics and Statistics. 15. It may be necessary to notice Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules which is reproduced in its entirety hereunder: "18.Termination of lien. --(a)A government servant's lien on a post may in no circumstances be terminated, even with his consent if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. (b)A government servant's lien on a post stands terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Government or Central/other State Governments) outside the cadre on which he is borne." A bare reading of the Rule makes it clear that a government servant's lien on a post cannot be terminated in any circumstances even with his consent if it results in leaving the government servant without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. A government servant's lien on a post stands terminated only on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. 17.It is very well settled that when a person with a lien against the post is appointed substantively to another post, only then he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then and then alone the lien against the previous post disappears. Lien connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. The lien of a government employee over the previous post ends if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous permanent post. 19. The lien of a government employee over the previous post ends if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous permanent post. 19. The term “lien” comes from the Latin term “ligament” meaning “binding”. The meaning of lien in service law is different from other meanings in the context of contract, common law, equity, etc. The lien of a government employee in service law is the right of the government employee to hold a permanent post substantively to which he has been permanently appointed. 21. Be it noted that no objections were raised when the respondent employee gave his option on 8-4-1991 duly informing all the concerned that his lien in the Subordinate Statistical Service had to be maintained for the purposes of promotions to higher posts/protection of financial interests, etc. In such view of the matter the respondent employee always had his lien in his parent department. The State at this stage cannot be allowed to turn round and say that the respondent employee did not retain lien against his post in the parent department. Reference may also be made in this regard in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in Sandhya Tomar and Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 357 , in particular paragraph no. 10, which is quoted hereunder as: 10. “Lien” connotes the civil right of a government servant to hold the post “to which he is appointed substantively”. The necessary corollary to the aforesaid right is that such appointment must be in accordance with law. A person can be said to have acquired lien as regards a particular post only when his appointment has been confirmed, and when he has been made permanent to the said post. “The word ‘lien’ is a generic term and, standing alone, it includes lien acquired by way of contract, or by operation of law.” Whether a person has lien, depends upon whether he has been appointed in accordance with law, in substantive capacity and whether he has been made permanent or has been confirmed to the said post. Reference may also be made in this regard in the case of Ramlal Khurana (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Reference may also be made in this regard in the case of Ramlal Khurana (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1989) 4 SCC 99 , in particular, paragraph 7, 8 and 9 which are quoted hereunder as: “7.We do not think that the contention urged for the appellant as to Rule 3.14 could be accepted. Rule 3.14 provides that a competent authority shall suspend the lien of a government servant when he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. It seems to us that this rule cannot be operated to the prejudice of a government servant who on his own has acquired legal right to an ex cadre post. Indeed, the rule is for the benefit of a government servant who intends to return back to his parent department. That was also the view expressed in T.R. Sharma case. But then, the appellant never wanted to return back to his parent department. He was stoutly opposing repatriation and asserting his right to remain in the ex cadre post. He has thus denied himself of the benefit of that rule. 8. The other contention urged for the appellant that he was not confirmed in the Excise Department and unless confirmed, he acquired no lien cannot also be accepted. Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. The principle being that no government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different cadres. It is a well-accepted principle of service jurisprudence. 9. In that instant case, the civil court has already ruled that the appellant had a right to continue in his substantive appointment as Excise Sub-Inspector. He secured that declaration when the Excise Department repatriated him to his parent department. After obtaining that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not turn round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent department. The lien in his parent department must be held to have been cancelled consequent on the decree of the civil court. After obtaining that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not turn round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent department. The lien in his parent department must be held to have been cancelled consequent on the decree of the civil court. Therefore, the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent authority to pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service.” 13. This Court has now proceeded to examine the factual matrix, which has been brought on record wherefrom the fact which is not in dispute is that the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was initially appointed as Lecturer (Political Science), on substantive post, in Ranchi College, Ranchi, a constituent college under Ranchi University, Ranchi on the recommendation made by the erstwhile University Selection Committee of the Universities. He was granted promotion to the post of Reader (Political Science) w.e.f. 02.11.1986 and while working as such, applications were invited by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Registrar in different Universities within the State of Bihar and the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, who was found to be suitable for the post, was recommended for appointment, and his name was recommended for appointment as against the post of Registrar in Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, which was communicated to the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 by the University vide letter dated 19.03.2002. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, after getting such communication for appointment to the post of Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, applied for extraordinary leave without pay with lien before Ranchi University, Ranchi and vide notification dated 03.04.2002 lien for a period of two years was granted, enabling him to join the post of Registrar under Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara and thereafter the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 submitted his joining on 15.04.2002, which was duly accepted by the concerned authorities of the said University. It requires to refer herein that the post of Registrar is a tenure post. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 after being appointed on such post has also been posted in different capacity in different Universities of the State of Bihar and finally returned to Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 14. It requires to refer herein that the post of Registrar is a tenure post. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 after being appointed on such post has also been posted in different capacity in different Universities of the State of Bihar and finally returned to Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 14. The grievance of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 is that when his services, in the capacity of Registrar in the Universities of Bihar, was not confirmed, and since his lien was not terminated or suspended, he made an application on 13.06.2017 before the Registrar, Ranchi University to accept his joining against his parent post of Reader (Political Science), the post on which he was having the lien since the date of grant of promotion to the post of Reader (Political Science), but his joining has not been accepted by rejecting it vide order dated 09.08.2017, against which, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5770 of 2017 has been filed. 15. The contention, which has been agitated by the Ranchi University, in assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and where under the order by which the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 has been rejected, is to the effect that when the lien has expired on or after 14.04.2007, there is no question of acceptance of joining. 16. This Court has examined the aforesaid contention and the reason of non-acceptance of joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 and after going through the legal position as to under which circumstances the lien will be said to cease and further whether due to non-extension of the period of lien with leave can lien be treated to have been ceased automatically. 17. 17. This Court, after going through the statutory provision, as contained in Clause 7 of the Statute dated 18.11.1980, as referred above, is of the view that the lien can be said to have lost it force only in the eventuality; if lien has been suspended under sub-clause (3) of clause 7 which put a condition about the suspension of lien only in a case of appointment in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the grade of pay on which he is borne, or in a substantive capacity to a tenure post, or provisionally, to a post on which another University servant would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under this Article and if the lien of University servant on a post is suspended under sub-clause (a) and (b), the post may be filled substantively and the University servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it; provided that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon as the suspended lien revives and if the lien of a University servant which has been suspended under sub-clause (a) above shall revive as soon as ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (a) (i), (ii) or (iii) thereof. 18. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be automatic suspension or termination of lien unless a decision to that effect is taken subject to the fulfillment of conditions as provided under Clause 7(3) (a) of the Statute dated 18.11.1980. 19. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants-Ranchi University in all fairness, has admitted the fact the lien has neither been suspended nor terminated. All along the case of the appellants-Ranchi University is that since the period of lien has not been extended after 14.04.2007 and thereafter no extension has been granted hence, it will be said to have expired on or after 14.04.2007 and on this count, the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 has been rejected. 20. All along the case of the appellants-Ranchi University is that since the period of lien has not been extended after 14.04.2007 and thereafter no extension has been granted hence, it will be said to have expired on or after 14.04.2007 and on this count, the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 has been rejected. 20. But, we, on the basis of statutory provisions as contained under Clause 7 (3) (a), are of the view that merely on account of the fact that the period of lien has not been extended by the competent authority the lien will not ipso facto lose its force rather an order is required to be passed by the competent authority either of superseding the lien or terminating it. 21. In view of such finding, this Court is not in hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the rejection of joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 to the post of reader is not sustainable. 22. It also requires to refer an admitted fact that the post which is subject matter of lien has not been filled up, as per the submission of learned counsel for the Ranchi University as also of the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, which also clarifies the position about validity of the lien. 23. So far the finding recorded by learned Single Judge is concerned, we have found there from that the learned Single Judge also observed that the services of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was never confirmed in the capacity of Registrar in any of the three universities, where he was posted in the said capacity and as such his lien will not stand terminated on account of his joining on the substantive capacity in other establishment and this fact has been admitted by the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi wherein at paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by the University, specific stand has been taken that the services of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was never confirmed as Registrar and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the pretext of service in the capacity of the Registrar has never been confirmed, therefore, in this account also the question of applicability of Clause 7 (3) (a) will not come. 24. Hence, the only question now is as to whether in the changed circumstances i.e. after up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. 24. Hence, the only question now is as to whether in the changed circumstances i.e. after up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, who was on lien will remain with the upgraded University-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University (erstwhile Ranchi College, Ranchi) or with Ranchi University, Ranchi? 25. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University submitted that in pursuance to the decision taken in meeting dated 02.08.2018, both the Universities have agreed for adjustment of services of teaching and non-teaching staffs on 'as is where is basis' and therefore, since the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was not working on that time in the up-graded University of Ranchi College, Ranchi, hence he cannot be treated as teaching staff of respondent-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University erstwhile Ranchi College, Ranchi in pursuance to the decision dated 02.08.2018. He has further contended that the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 cannot be accepted since certain criminal cases are pending against the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1. 26. The question herein is that as to whether decision taken by both the Universities in its meeting dated 02.08.2018 for coming to a settlement about cadre division and apportionment of assets and liabilities of the Ranchi University and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, would prevail over statutory provision where provision has been made to deal with the cases of lien? 27. It is settled position of law that the statutory provision cannot be superseded by any executive instruction or decision. However, the executive instruction can supplement the statutory provision in the subject but not to supplant as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr reported in (2014) 8 SCC 644 , in particular paragraph 28, which is quoted hereunder as: "28. However, we find substance in the submission made by Mr. C.U. Singh that 2004 clarification would not have the effect of amending 2003 Rules. Undoubtedly, 2004 clarification is only an executive order. It is settled proposition of law that the executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In spite of accepting the submission of Mr. It is settled proposition of law that the executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In spite of accepting the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh that clarification dated 29.04.2004 would not have the effect of superceding, amending or altering the 2003 Rules, it would not be possible to give any relief to the respondents. The criteria under the 2003 Rules governs all future recruitments. We have earlier already concluded that no vested right had accrued to the respondents, the trained apprentices, under the 2001 Rules. We do not accept the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh that the claim of the respondents (trained apprentices) would be covered under the 2001 Rules by virtue of the so-called amendment made by 2003 Rules. We are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error, firstly, in holding that the 2003 rules are applicable, and secondly, not taking into consideration that all the posts had been filled up by the time the decision had been rendered." 28. This Court has appreciated the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University taking into consideration the statutory provision, as contained under Clause 7, which speaks about the principle of lien, as has been held herein above, that lien will remain with a University professor if there is substantive appointment to a permanent post but it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was appointed on promotion on the substantive post of Reader on 02.11.1986 and since lien of the writ petitioner was against the post of reader (political science) and at the time when the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was granted leave with lien, he was working as Reader in Political Science under Ranchi College, Ranchi, which has been upgraded and the nature of up-gradation would be immaterial with respect to staff working in the upgraded college rather effect of up-gradation would only be that after such decision of up-gradation the appointing authority of the employee working in the upgraded college will now be changed from the earlier appointing authority to that of the upgraded, meaning thereby prior to up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, the appointing authority of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was Ranchi University Ranchi but after up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi the appointing authority of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 will be Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi. Since the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 was working as Reader in Political Science in Ranchi College, Ranchi and after taking lien he joined on the post of Registrar in other Universities in the State of Bihar, as such the post of Reader in Political Science will not stand abolished automatically, as has been provided in Clause (7) of the Statute dated 18.11.1980 and discussed in detail, herein above rather the lien will remain with the Ranchi University, Ranchi now Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi so long as it has not been suspended or terminated. Since the lien will remain with the Ranchi College, Ranchi now upgraded as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, therefore, the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 will be treated to be under the cadre strength of the newly upgraded Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi (earlier Ranchi College, Ranchi). 29. In view of the decision dated 02.08.2018, the petitioner will also be treated under the cadre strength of erstwhile Ranchi College, Ranchi now Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi. Hence, according to our considered view, the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi is to accept joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1. 30. So far as the instances cited by the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi about pendency of the criminal cases is concerned, this Court is not making any remark upon it because it is not relevant for the issue. 31. This court, on the basis of discussions, made herein above and after going through the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and further going across the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, wherein Ranchi University has been directed to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, are of the view that such direction cannot be said to be illegal in view of the fact that in the meanwhile Ranchi College, Ranchi has been taken out from the Ranchi University and has been upgraded as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and further the fact about segregation of the Ranchi University and its up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and further the fact about segregation of the Ranchi University and its up-gradation of Ranchi College, Ranchi as Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi was not brought to the knowledge of the writ Court. 32. In view thereof, we, in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since we are sitting in intra-court appeal, are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be modified to the extent that the Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi is to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, who was Reader in Political Science at the relevant period of time in Ranchi College, Ranchi now Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi. 33. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order to the extent that Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, the newly impleaded respondent nos. 3 and 4 has to accept the joining of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 to the post of Reader (Political Science). The impugned order is also modified to the extent that the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 will be entitled to get the consequential benefit from the December, 2017 as it is admitted case of the writ petitioner-respondent no.-1 that he has received salary up-to November, 2017 and hence the respondent-Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi is directed to take a decision with regard to extending the consequential benefits including salary from the month of December, 2017 on-wards in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 34. With the aforesaid modification, as discussed herein above, the intra-court appeal stands disposed of. 35. Consequent upon the disposal of intra-court appeal, I.A. No. 509 of 2020 stands disposed of. I agree- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)