1 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3012/2009 Dr. Om Prakash Dhakar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3011/2009 Smt. Kanta Kataria & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4520/2009 Dr. Parbat Singh Charan Vs. State & Ors. 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4543/2009 Dr. (Mrs.) Kiriti Rajimwale & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order 22.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MS Singhvi ] Mr.PS Bhati ], for the petitioners. Ms. Kusum Rao, for the respondent-University. Mr. Sudheer Tak, for the respondent-State Mr. Girish Joshi, for the respondent-UGC. <><><> In writ petitions nos. 3012/2009 and 3011/2009 applications have been submitted by the petitioners i.e., IA Nos.17311/2009 and 17312/2009 wherein the petitioners prayed that the direction be issued to the respondents for undertaking the exercise for making promotion under Career Advancement Scheme in terms of the order dated 5.10.2009 as early as possible as well as the time period may be fixed for this purpose. On 18.1.2010 learned counsel for the University sought time to take instructions from the University obviously to disclose within how much time they can complete the process. Today learned counsel for the 2 respondent-University submits that respondent-University is not in position to give specific time and this process may take 6 months time and may also take more than 6 months of time. Learned counsel for the respondent-University also submitted that the process is lengthy process and for which they have to call for some persons as experts. The plea taken by the respondent-University cannot be appreciated in any manner. There cannot be a stand that the administration of the University cannot foresee how the reasonable time can be for completion of one process. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that these writ petitions may be decided in view of the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Dr. Raji Ram Bhakar Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Anr. (SBCWP No.4200/2008, decided on 19.1.2010) wherein the direction was given to the respondents to initiate the process of making selection from the post of Associate Professor to Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme within 3 months and the recommendations/decision be communicated to the petitioners individually. This court further observed that the petitioner if still feel aggrieved by the final out come, they are always be at liberty to assail the same in appropriate proceedings under law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners prayed that the petitioners be given promotion on the post of Associate Professor under the Career 3 Advancement Scheme of 2000 w.e.f. 19th May, 2001 with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners further vehemently submitted that the time bound programme is required to be given to the respondents because of the reason that this court has also taken note of the plea of the petitioners in the judgment dated 19.1.2010 that in the pretext of nature of process, the process has already been delayed. It is also submitted that the petitioners are denied the benefits since last 9 years. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the orders passed earlier including the order dated 19.1.2010. This court found that there is no restriction with number of posts under the Scheme as framed by the UGC and, thereafter, ordered that respondents may grant benefit under the Scheme to all the candidates who are found eligible and suitable by the committee irrespective of the restriction, if any, imposed by the State Government. This order was passed on 5.10.2009 and more than 3 months have already passed to that order. Today learned counsel for the respondent-University is not in position to give any tentative time within which the process can be completed and this Court has already observed that such a stand cannot be appreciated. The process petitioners are seeking to be completed is of the year 2001 and this court has already allowed the identical 4 writ petitions and in the totality of the facts of the case referred above, it is appropriate to decide these writ petitions also with specific direction to the respondents to complete the process for grant of promotion to the petitioners if they are found eligible for promotion under the said Scheme, but it should be completed within a period of 6 months from today. It is also made clear that in case the petitioners if have any grievance after any order passed in the process as well as for the other prayers on the grounds which have been raised in these writ petitions, then they will be free to approach this Court as that will give a separate and specific cause of action to the petitioners. In view of the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondents to complete the process within a period of 6 months from today with liberty. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/- 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No._____/2009 Date of Order 22.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MS Singhvi ] Mr.PS Bhati ], for the petitioners. Ms. Kusum Rao, for the respondent-University. Mr. Sudheer Tak, for the respondent-State Mr. Girish Joshi, for the respondent-UGC. <><><> This writ petition is allowed (see separate order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3012/2009-Dr. Om Prakash Dhakar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors, decided today itself) By order Court master