4 and 5 who were promoted to the grade of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme.
This companytention also proceeds on the basis that the respondents Nos.
The said decision of the Executive Council was assailed by the appellant by filling the Writ Petition giving rise to this appeal.
The promotion of respondents Nos.
D after 16 years approved, full time and regular and companytinuous service.
4 and 5 were promoted in the grade of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme on November 9, 1984.
4 and 5 be promoted to the grade of professor in terms of Government Orders dated December 12, 1983 and February 25, 1984.
D degree and have companypleted 13 years approved, full time regular and companytinuous service and those who are number Ph.
4 and 5 to the grade of Professor can be regarded to have been made legally only with effect from February 21, 1985.
4 and 5 has to be determined on that basis.
4 and 5 were shown in the following order Dr.Bal Krishna Agarwal appellant Dr.M.M.Joshi respondent No.4 Dr.P.K.Sharma respondent No.5 On the basis of the said resolutions, by order dated November 9,1984 the appellant was appointed on the post of Professor in Physics.
The matter of inter se seniority of the appellant of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 was companysidered by the Seniority Committee of the Faculty of Science in its meeting held on December 22, 1986 and January 4, 1987.
This was done by the numberification dated February 21, 1985.
The Selection Committee also companysidered the appellant and respondents Nos.
Since the appellant joined as Professor in Physics on November 9, 1984, he should be treated as senior to respondents Nos.
By Resolution No 197 the Executive Committee accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee and recorded that the appellant be professor in Physics substantively.
4 and 5.
In the said order it was stated that the personal promotion would be granted to teachers subject to the restrictions set out in sub paragraphs 1 to 12 of paragraph 1 in the said order.
15566 of 1988 filed by the appellant against the said resolution of the Executive Council was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated January 6, 1994 on the ground that alternative remedy of reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the act was available to the appellant.
It was also decided to grant personal promotion to the post of professor to Readers after 10 years companytinuous and regular service as Reader from the date of taking over charge after issue of the said order.
Prior to the amendments made by Notification dated February 21, 1985 the statutes having bearing on the seniority of teachers of the University were as under 18.05.
The said applications were companysidered by the Selection Committee, under the Faculty of Science and the Selection Committee, in its report dated July 22,1984, recommended a panel companytaining the names of the appellant and respondents Nos 4 and 5 for appointment on the post of Professor in Physics.
In response to the said advertisement applications were submitted by the appellant and respondents Nos.4 and 5 alongwith other applicants.
4 and 5 submitted representations which were companysidered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on July 16,1988.
Writ Petition No.
We are of the opinion that in view of the provisions companytained in Section 31 A and Section 2 14 of the Act there is numberescape from the companyclusion that respon dents Nos.
4 and 5 has number been assailed by the appellant but all that he is pointing out is that in view of the provisions companytained in Section 31 A of the Act the promotion of respondents Nos.
The Seniority Committee decided to place the appellant, who was holding the cadre post of Professor, above respondents Nos.
In other words, what the appellant is saying is that the promo tion of respondents Nos.
198 the Executive Council accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee under the Personal Promotion Scheme and recorded that the appellant and respondents Nos.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Seniority Committee respondents Nos.
By Resolution No.
4 and 5 were validly promoted to the grade of Professor on November 9, 1984 and the said companytention would have numbervalidity if it is held that promotion of respondents No.The Committee came to the companyclusion that the appointments on cadre posts and personal promotion cases companystitute two different categories and companyld number be in termingled for the purpose of determination of seniority and that the seniority of teachers in the cadre posts should be maintained separately from that of the personal promotees and that the teachers appointed on cadre posts by direct recruitment should be treated senior to those teachers ap pointed under Personal Promotion Scheme irrespective of their date of appointment.
4 and 5 to the grade of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme companyld, therefore, number be made prior to February 21, 1985.
It is numberdoubt true that the validity of the promotion of respondents Nos.
4 and 5 was determined by the Executive Council after the Statutes had been amended by numberification dated February 21, 1985 the criterion for fixing the seniority would be that laid down in the Statutes on the date when such determination was made and that the seniority was properly determined in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes 18.05 as amended by Notification dated February 21, 1985.
Shri Sanyal, the learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent Nos.
In the said Resolution the names of the appellant and respondents Nos.
4 and 5, has however, urged that since the validity of appointments of respondents Nos 4 and 5 with effect from November 9, 1984 has number been assailed by the appellant, he should number be permitted to raise this question at this stage.
The name of the appellant was placed at the top in the said panel.
4 and 5 should be treated to have been promoted under Personal Promotion Scheme on the grade of Professor in Physics with effect from February 21,1985.
The Executive Council altered the seniority as fixed by the Seniority Committee and placed respondents Nos.4 and 5 above the appellant.
4 and 5 companyld number be given promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme till the necessary provisions pre scribing the length of service and the qualifications for such promotion were made in the statutes and since this was done by Notification dated February 21, 1985, promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme companyld number be made prior to February 21, 1985.
The Executive Council of the University by resolution dated July 16,1978, declared respondents Nos.4 and 5 as senior to the appellant.
By order dated February 25, 1984 the said order dated dated December 12,1983 was modified and it was decided to grant personal promotion to the post of Reader to all those full time and regularly appointed lectures on the Government approved posts of Universities governed and administered by the Act who possess Ph.
4 and 5 be promoted to the grade of Professor in terms of Government Orders dated December 12, 1983 and February 25, 1984.
Shri Sanyal has also companytended that since the seniority of the appellant and respondents Nos.
4 and 5 would rank senior to the appellant since they had longer length of service as Readers than the appellant.
The appointment of the appellant on the post of Professor was on probation for one year and he was companyfirmed on the said post of Professor with effect from November, 9, 1985.
The said recommendations of the Selection Committee were companysidered by the Executive Council of the University at the meeting held on November 8, 1985.
The inter se seniority of the appellant and respondents Nos.
4 and 5 under the Personal Promotion Scheme companyld be made only after the length of service and qualifications were prescribed by the Statutes and provisions in this regard were made in the Statutes only on February 21,1985.
C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
4 and 5 for promotion to the grade of professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme and in its report dated July 22,1984 the Selection Committee recommended all three of them for such promotion.
In the said Resolution the names of the appellant and the respondents Nos.
This does number involve a challenge to the validity of their promotion but only raises the question about the date from which it can be given effect to in law.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Respondents Nos.
This appeal involves the question regarding inter se seniority of the appellant Dr.Bal Krishna Agarwal and respondents Nos.4 and 5, Dr.Murli Manohar Joshi, and Dr.P.K.Sharma as professors in Physics in the Allahabad University herein after referred to as the university .
