IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.520 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.3.2010 Dr. P.C. Juneja and others -----Appellants Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Sarvpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants whose promotion from back date has been set aside by learned Single Judge. 2. The respondent-writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Reader in the University on June 29, 1985. The appellants were promoted to the post of Reader vide order dated 8.4.1992 from a date prior to the appointment of the writ petitioners which affected their seniority and further chance of promotion. The writ petitioners LPA No.520 of 1993 (O&M) challenged the same by submitting that on 7.2.1985 Executive Council of the University had laid down that Ph.D. was essential qualification for Merit Promotion Scheme. The appellant did not possess the said qualifications which the writ petitioners had the same. Accordingly, the writ petitioners were appointed as Readers and the appellants could not be appointed. Later, qualification of Ph.D. was relaxed “if there was Equivalent Published Research Work” and on the basis of the said relaxation, the appellants were given promotion form a back date. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioners was that promotion of the appellants which was much later than the writ petitioners could not have been given a date prior to promotion of the writ petitioners. The appellants could not have been considered for promotion prior to the date of relaxation of Ph.D. qualification. 4. The petition was contested by the appellants on the plea that Ph.D. could not have been laid down as a basic condition of eligibility. This plea was rejected by learned Single Judge. It was held that Ph.D. could be laid 2 LPA No.520 of 1993 (O&M) down as a condition as the said degree was evidence of assessment and evaluation of research work done. It was further held that the writ petitioners having been duly appointed and the appellants not having the prescribed qualification, subsequent relaxation of the said qualification and subsequent order of promotion could not justify antedating of promotion of the appellants from a date prior to the appointment of the writ petitioners. 5. At the time of hearing of this appeal on August 3, 1993, direction was issued to constitute an expert committee on the question whether the appellants were entitled to retrospective promotion. In reply of the University to CM No.1017 of 1994, it was stated that matter was got examined from the Counsel of the University who gave opinion that action of the University was appropriate in view of interim order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It has not been disputed that at the time of consideration of the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Reader on 29.6.1985, the appellants were not 3 LPA No.520 of 1993 (O&M) eligible for want of Ph.D. degree. By later decision of relaxing the Ph.D. degree, the appellants were given promotion about seven years after the writ petitioners were appointed but promotion was made effective from a date prior to the appointment of the writ petitioners. This course was clearly arbitrary as held by learned Single Judge. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 26, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 4