Valmiki J Mehta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner one Sh. S.K. Chandoke, an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the respondent no. 1 -School of Planning and Architecture -employer. Petitioner was originally appointed as a Lecturer in Socio -Economics with the respondent no. 1 on 1.11.1965. Following two relief's are pressed before me in terms of the prayer clauses in the writ petition: - (i) First is for grant to the petitioner of second promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme. (ii) The second relief is the claim for conducting of recruitment to the post of Professor of Socio -Economics by holding the appointment of Mr. A.K. Maitra -respondent no. 2 in 1.8.1981 as illegal. With respect to the second relief claimed I may note that the writ petition is filed in the year 1997 for challenging an act of respondent No. 1 of 1981 i.e. of about 17 years earlier. So far as the first relief claimed for second promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme of the respondent no. 1 is concerned, the issue arises with respect to applicability and the language of the Merit Promotion Scheme of December, 1984 of the respondent no. 1. Whereas the petitioner claims that more than one merit promotion can be granted under the scheme after every 8 years, on the other hand the respondent no. 1 contends that only one promotion can be claimed and granted under the Merit Promotion Scheme and in fact therefore not a single other Lecturer or Assistant Professor or Professor has got a second promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme.
(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner, reliance is essentially placed upon Rule 5.1 of the Merit Promotion Rules and which reads as under: - 5. ELIGIBILITY 5.1. A member of the faculty whose contribution in teaching, research and development of the School and its programmes is such as to merit recognition may be considered for merit promotion in the first instance after completing 8 years of service in the respective cadre in the school from where promotion is to be made. Emphasis is placed on behalf of the petitioner on the expression "in the first instance" to argue that this expression shows that there can be more than one merit promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme. Reliance is also placed upon a letter of the University Grants Commission (UGC) dated 18.3.1999 which states that two promotions can be granted under the Merit Promotion Scheme.
(3.) I am unable to agree with the arguments as urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to more than one promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme/Rules of the respondent no. 1. This I say so because when under a Merit Promotion Scheme or an Assured Promotion Scheme more than one promotion is granted or a higher pay -scale is granted more than once, then, in such a case, there is a clear cut language of grant of Merit Promotion/Assured Career Promotion/Higher Pay -Scale of the higher post after every fixed number of years whereupon there is entitlement to automatic higher scale of the higher post. The language of Rule 5.1 relied upon by the petitioner only shows that the expression "in the first instance" is relatable to a first application made for merit promotion and not for such expression indicating as if second promotion can only be claimed which is because grant of promotion under the Scheme is not automatic but on compliance of certain requirements which are examined by a Selection Committee. This becomes clear from the immediately succeeding Rule 5.2 which states that if a candidate is not successful on the first occasion to get the merit promotion, as he fails in the consideration, then he can apply for review after a lapse of one year i.e. a review for grant of merit promotion. The said Rule 5.2 reads as under: -;