R.S.A. No.4038 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4038 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 4 th APRIL, 2011 Registrar, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University & another. .... Appellants Versus Dr. Vishav Raj & another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.1 – Caveator. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants No.1 and 2 who were successful in the trial court but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Dr. Vishav Raj filed suit against appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 and against Dr. Dharam Pal Khetan defendant No.3 (proforma respondent herein). The plaintiff in the suit challenged order dated 08.01.2003 passed by Board of Management of defendant No.1-University whereby the Board did not approve promotion of the plaintiff as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme (in short the Scheme), alleging the said order to be against rules and instructions. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction directing defendants No.1 and 2 to promote the plaintiff as Professor w.e.f. R.S.A. No.4038 of 2010 -2- 09.04.2001 when the plaintiff become eligible for promotion as Professor under the Scheme along with all consequential benefits. Defendants contested the suit and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 and thereby suit filed by plaintiff has been decreed partly. Impugned order dated 08.01.2003 passed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 has been set aside and defendants No.1 and 2 have been directed to re-consider the entire process of promotion of the plaintiff- appellant as per criteria laid down in instructions dated 23.10.1997 and to pass fresh order accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that instructions dated 28.09.1998 had come into existence before the plaintiff became eligible for promotion and, therefore, the lower appellate court erred in directing the appellants to reconsider the promotion case of the plaintiff in the light of instructions dated 23.10.1997. On the other hand, learned counsel for caveator – respondent No.1- plaintiff contended that instructions dated dated 28.09.1998 govern direct selection only and do not govern promotion whereas instructions dated 23.10.1997 governed promotion as well as direct selection and since case of respondent No.1 relates to promotion, it is governed by instructions dated 23.10.1997 and not by instructions dated 28.09.1998. R.S.A. No.4038 of 2010 -3- I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Learned counsel for appellants has shown both instructions dated 23.10.1997 as well as 28.09.1998. Perusal thereof leaves no room for doubt that instructions dated 28.09.1998 prescribe criteria for selection of Professor/equivalent by way of direct recruitment or open selection only whereas instructions dated 23.10.1997 provided criteria for open selection i.e. direct recruitment as well as for promotion. Consequently instructions dated 28.09.1998 superseded instructions dated 23.10.1997 for the purpose of open selection/direct recruitment of Professor/equivalent but instructions dated 23.10.1997 regarding promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent remain unchanged by instructions dated 28.09.1998. Admittedly the case of the plaintiff is of promotion to the post of Professor and not direct recruitment to the said post. Consequently case of the plaintiff is still governed by instructions dated 23.10.1997. Consequently lower appellate court committed no error in directing the appellants to consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion on the basis of instructions dated 23.10.1997. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 4th April, 2011 'raj'