THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25 of 2002 DATED:13.12.2010 BETWEEN: DR.K.CHOWDOJI RAO. …PETITIONER. AND: SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, ANANTHAPUR …RESPONDENT. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.25 of 2002 ORDER: - The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs by way of writ of mandamus: 1.to declare the action of the respondent-University in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and (2) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Professor by treating the petitioner to have been promoted as Associate Professor/Reader with effect from April 1993. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in the Government Decree College on 30.3.1984 in the Department of Chemistry. While he was working as a Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, the respondent-University issued notification to fill up the post of Lecturer in the subject of Polymer Science and he was appointed to the said post on 17.7.1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer on 1.4.1989. The respondent-University issued notification with a view to undertake the promotion scheme on 6.2.1993 known as Careers Advancement Scheme. The last date for making the application for promotion was stipulated as 15.2.1993. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner made an application and thereafter, the selections were made on 26.4.1993. While so, some of the candidates have filed W.P.No:5773 of 1993 questioning the said selection process and obtained the stay of selection. On that, the University and some other Lecturers filed a vacate stay petition. On 28.4.1993, this Court modified the order of stay confining the same only to the extent of Department of Chemistry, English, Physics and Mathematics and in respect of other subjects, it was vacated. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of on 8.12.1994. It is also stated that on the earlier occasion also, the interim order was modified on 25.7.1993 and subsequently also, on 21.9.1994, the interim order was further modified confining the promotions in respect of Assistant Professor/Reader in Polymer Science Department and in view of the modified order, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Professor/Reader on 26.9.1994 in the subject of Polymer Science. The respondent-University issued notification in the month of October, 2001 to fill up various posts of Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors. One of the conditions is that one must possess 8 years of service as a Reader for the purpose of promotion of Professor. In January, 2002, the selection took place. But, the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he has not put in 8 years service and he has put in only 7 years one month. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme in the year 2004. Now, the petitioner is working as Professor having been promoted in the year 2004 under the Career Advancement Scheme. It is also stated that on 26.4.1993, the Board of Meeting approved the post of Reader and if this date is considered as date of promotion as Reader by the time of notification issued in the month of October, the petitioner would have become eligible for promotion and he would have got the promotion much earlier. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner to the post of Professor at least with effect from 26.4.1993 is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel. The respondent-University issued notification in the month of October, 2001 to fill up various posts of Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors. One of the conditions for promotion is that one must possess 8 years of service as a Reader for the purpose of promotion of Professor by the date of notification. The case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he has not fulfilled the requisite service of 8 years as on the date of notification. In this regard, the case of the petitioner is that the posts of Readers and Associate Professors under Merit Promotion Scheme was approved by the Board Meeting on 26.4.1993 subject to the Statutory Rules and Regulations of the University that are in force and if this date is considered as date of promotion as Associate Professor/Reader by the time of notification issued in the month of October, the petitioner would have become eligible for promotion and he would have got the promotion much earlier. At this stage, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for no fault on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be denied the opportunity of promotion much earlier to 2004 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for promotion pursuant to the earlier notification dated 4.10.2001. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that as the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite service of 8 years, which is admittedly the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the notification, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion as Professor from the anterior date. It is further contended that selection for the post of Associate Professor/Reader was conducted on 26.4.1993 and subsequently, due to the filing of the writ petition by the affected parties and also the stay granted by this Court, the selection could not have been finalised and subsequently, on the modification of the order of stay, the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor/Reader in respect of Polymer Science on 21.9.1994 and the petitioner has already been promoted from the cadre of Lecturer to the other categories under Career Advancement Scheme and he has been working as such since 2004. On the rival contentions, the fact that remains undisputed is that the selection for the posts of Associate Professor/Readers was conducted on 26.4.1993 and subsequently, the selection process was stalled due to the filing of writ petition by the affected parties and also the stay granted by this Court and subsequently, on the modification of the order of stay, the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 21.9.1994. At this stage, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionepr that if the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor/Reader immediately after the selection process i.e., on 26.4.1993, he would have become eligible for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme by the date of notification issued by the University on 4.10.2001 and but for the delay in promoting him as Associate Professor on 21.9.1994, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his promotion as Professor at the earliest point of time. In this regard, it is needless to observe that the selection process for considering the promotion to the post of Associate Professor/Reader pursuant to the selection made on 26.4.1993 was delayed only due to the legal impediment on the filing of writ petition by the affected parties and also due to the granting of stay order by this Court and therefore, the same cannot be construed as a latch on the administration of the University in finalising the selection process. On that count, the petitioner cannot claim that if he were selected as Associate Professor immediately after the selection made on 26.4.1993, he would have become eligible for promotion to the post of Professor even by the date of notification issued by the University on 4.10.2001, by completing the requisite age of 8 years and therefore, he cannot claim the promotion to the post of Professor from the anterior date. In this background of the matter, I am of the view that no illegality or any irregularity can be fastened against the respondent-University in not considering the promotion of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor from the date of selection made on 26.4.1993 immediately, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Professor. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:13.12.2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:25 OF 2002 DATED:13.12.2010