Shailesh Kr. Sinha, J.

1. Through this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th January, 2007 passed by the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar (respondent No. 1) on the representation filed by Dr. Baleshwar Roy (respondent No. 5) ventilating his grievances that he being senior to the petitioner as University Professor ought to have been made Professor-in-Charge of Baliram Bhagat College, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as the College) being seniormost teacher of the College. After considering the said representation and hearing the University as well as the petitioner, it was held that respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of University Professor with effect from 29.11.1994 under 16-year Promotion Statute and the petitioner was promoted as University Professor with effect from 1.6.1995 and as such respondent No. 5 ought to have been made Professor-in-Charge of the College.

2. The stand of the University before the Chancellor was that the date of promotion of respondent No. 5 as University Professor should be with effect from 1.12.1996 and not 29.11.1994 and, therefore, the University has taken steps for shifting the date of promotion of respondent No. 5 from 29.11.1994 to 1.12.1996 awaiting the concurrence of the University Service Commission, but the University could not receive the concurrence. It was further brought to the notice of the Chancellor that the shifting of the date of promotion of respondent No. 5 from 29.11.1994 to 1.12.1996 falls after the cut-off date i.e. 23.9.1995, which is the date of Statute for granting higher pay scale.

3. After taking into consideration the facts as mentioned in the representation of respondent No. 5 and considering the stand of the University as well as the petitioner, the said representation of respondent No. 5 was disposed of holding to the effect that so long the date of promotion of respondent No. 5 as University Professor, which is 29.11.1994, is not shifted to 1.12.1996, as contended by the University, respondent No. 5 shall remain seniormost University Professor in the College and therefore, only on the ground that the date of promotion of respondent No. 5 may be shifted to 1.12.1996 instead of 29.11.1994, he cannot be treated junior to the petitioner at that stage. Accordingly, while disposing of the representation, the Chancellor directed the University to appoint respondent No. 5 as Professor-in-Charge of the College being the seniormost teacher of the College.

4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid decision on the ground, firstly, that the time-bound promotions are not cadre promotion and he being senior to respondent No. 5 as Lecturer, he remained senior to respondent No. 5 and, secondly the seniority of the petitioner was determined by the University as per the resolution of the Approval, Appointment, Seniority and Pay Fixation Committee, which have decided the inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 on 7.5.2004, as contained in Annexure 14 to the writ application, which has not been considered by the Chancellor, a very important document in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was fixed in the light of Annexure 14, whereby pursuant to the judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5859 of 1996 and as per the direction of the State Government as contained in letter dated 28.9.2005, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400--22,400/- and respondent No. 5 in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300/-. vide Annexure 15 to the writ application. According to the petitioner these documents are very important, which did not find consideration before the Chancellor while disposing of the representation of respondent No. 5.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the University submits that the University has nothing to say but to carry out the order of the Chancellor, as contained in Annexure 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 supports the order passed by the Chancellor, as contained in Annexure 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Chancellor while supporting the order has drawn my attention to sub-sections (4) and (4-Ka) of section 9 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the). The provision of sub-section (4-Ka) of the empowers the Chancellor to re-consider the order passed by him if he finds that the order passed by him is not correct in the light of the relevant records or it is necessary in the interest of justice to withdraw the order so passed by him. In the light of the aforesaid provision, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Chancellor submits that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Chancellor and bring to his notice the relevant documents, which, according to him, could not be considered by him for arriving at a just decision.

6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the petitioner should approach the Chancellor and accordingly he is permitted to file an appropriate representation for the same within a period of two weeks on receipt of the certified copy of this order.

7. In this view of the matter, if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid time, it is expected that the said representation shall be considered and appropriate order would be passed in terms of the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (4-Ka) of section 9 of the Act, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.

8. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Let a copy of this order be given to all the parties.