- (1.) Heard Kum. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in respondent No. 1 - Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapith, Akola as demonstrator on 10-1-1969. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant professor with effect from 22-1-1970. The next promotion of Associate Professor was given to the petitioner with effect from 1-2-1974 and finally, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 4-6-1984. It is submitted that the petitioner worked on the post of Professor for a period of one year and the respondent without any justification, vide order dated 3-7-1985, reverted the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the petitioner, the other candidates who were promoted to the post of Professor were also reverted to the post of Associate professor. However, at later point of time, some of them including respondent no. 3 was again promoted to the post of Professor vide order dated 26-10-1990 but the claim of the petitioner for the post of Professor was denied without any justification and, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition wherein the petitioner has challenged the order of promotion dated 26-10-1990 whereby respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Professor. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason given by the respondent for reverting the petitioner from the post of Professor and not promoting the petitioner again along with others to the post of Professor is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that the petitioner who was otherwise qualified and eligible to be promoted to the post of Professor was denied his due without any justification, and wrongly granted promotion to respondent No. 3 vide order dated 26-10-1990.
(3.) Smt. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 not disputed that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor vide order dated 4-6-1984, however, brought to the notice of this Court that in the said order, it is specifically stated that the promotions given to the candidates mentioned in the order of promotion, including the petitioner, were purely temporary promotions given to them as Professors in the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500. She also brought to the notice of this Court sub-clause (1) of clause 4 of the Promotion order which once again reiterated that the appointments on promotion were made purely on temporary basis and they will be reverted to their original post if their appointments are not confirmed by the Selection Committee. Similarly, Mrs. Patil, learned counsel also pointed out clause 3 of the promotion order which relates to the petitioner and where it is specifically stated that the promotion of shti W. M. Waghmare, Reader in Animal Husbandry and Dairy is effected under backlog. The learned counsel contended that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professor vide order dated 4-6-1984 was because of backlog available in the said category. However, at later point of time, respondent No. 1 came to know about the Government Resolution dated 14-3-1985 wherein it is specifically stated that the principle of roster point shall not apply to the posts above the posts of Assistant Professor viz. Professor, Head of Department, associate Professor etc. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the stipulation in the Government Resolution and as the promotion given to the petitioner was purely temporary, the petitioner was reverted vide order dated 3-7-1985. It is, therefore, submitted that the reversion of the petitioner is sustainable in law. Smt. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that even otherwise the order of promotion was passed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers under Statute 51 (1) of the P. A. U. (K. V. ) Statutes 1969, which deals with the emergency powers of the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, it is specifically mentioned in the order of promotion that the promotions which were effected by the said order were of purely temporary and ad-hoc in nature. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the order of promotion of petitioner dated 4-6-1984 clearly mentions that the promotion of the petitioner was purely temporary and because of backlog. It is also evident that the order of promotion is passed by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his powers under Statute 51 (1) of the P. A. U. (K. V. ) Statutes 1969, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent, deals with the emergency powers of the Vice chancellor and, therefore, it is evident that the promotion of the petitioner was purely ad-hoc and temporary and as per clause 3 of the promotion order, it is effected under the backlog. We have also perused the Government Resolution dated 14-3-1985. The perusal of Government Resolution clearly demonstrates that the principle of roster point shall not be applicable to the posts above the posts of Assistant Professor viz. Professor, Head of Department, Associate professor etc. If that is so, then by necessary implication, question of any backlog appearing in the cadre of Professor does not arise. Consequently, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professor was made under the impression of backlog also cannot be sustained and therefore, the order of reversion dated 3-7-1985 passed by respondent No. 1, in our considered view, is just and proper and also justifiable in law. 6. Writ Petition suffers from lack of merits, hence the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.;