Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. - (1.) The appellant, Prof. S. A. Siddiqui, and the first respondent, Prof. M. Wajid Khan, are both Professors in the Botany Department of the Aligarh Muslim University. The dispute pertains to seniority as between the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in the Aligarh Muslim University on 30th of April, 1965. He became a Reader in the open post of Reader on 30th March, 1979 upon his selection by the selection committees. He was subsequently selected under the Merit Promotion Scheme for promotion to the post of Professor. On 14th of March, 1987, he was promoted as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme. The first respondent was appointed as lecturer much later on 2nd of April, 1973. He was also promoted as Reader much later under the Merit Promotion Scheme on 1-1-1983. Thereafter he has been appointed to the open post of Professor on 10-3-1992 on his selection by the selection committee. Although the first respondent has been appointed as Professor much later than the appellant, he contends that he alone is to be considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion since he holds the post of a Professor on regular selection. He contends that since the appellant was promoted as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme, he cannot be considered for seniority of further promotions. It is the contention of the Aligarh Muslim University as well as the appellant that both the appellant as well as the first respondent hold the post of Professors and they have been throughout considered as Professors and have been shown in the common seniority list of all Professors. From the year 1992 onwards, that is to say after the appointment of first respondent as Professor, in the seniority list of professors the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 1. For the first time in 1995, the first respondent challenged the placement in the seniority list of the name of the appellant. On 12-6-1995 he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for determination of inter se seniority between him and the appellant for the purpose of appointment as Chairman of the department. The Vice-Chancellor on 21-6-1995 appointed as sub-committee for the determination of the issue of seniority of the first respondent. On 22-2-1996 the first respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed that separate seniority lists be prepared and the parties appointed under Merit Promotion Scheme be not appointed or continued as Chairman/Dean of any Department or Faculty of the Aligarh Muslim University. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
(2.) In 1983 the University Grants Commission formulated a scheme of Merit Promotion with a view "to give recognition to the outstanding work done by the University teachers and to provide for reasonable opportunities to them for professional advancement". It was so stated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission in letters addressed to the Vice-Chancellors of various Universities. The University Grants Commission felt that the Merit Promotion Scheme would improve the overall morale of the University teachers and would also minimise to some extent, demands for increasing the number of senior positions during the sixth plan period in the Universities. The following objectives, inter alia, were stated by the University Grants Commission as forming the basis of the Merit Promotion Scheme. 1. The basic objectives of the scheme should be (1) to recognise outstanding work done by the University teachers in the areas of teaching and research (2) subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subjects/areas concerned and (3) to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition, on a competitive basis. The scheme should, therefore, be appropriately named as "Merit Promotion Scheme for University Teachers". This would be in the nature of a "flexible complementing scheme", no additional posts would be created and the existing persons on the basis of critical assessment were to be promoted to the next higher level and the position would be held by such incumbents as personal to them, no resulting vacancy was required to be filled and no new posts were required to be created. Detailed guidelines were laid down by the University Grants Commission for the implementation of the scheme. There was a ceiling on the number of positions which could be held in a department on such merit promotion.
(3.) The Academic Council of the Aligarh Muslim University at its meeting held on 15th of June, 1983 recommended that the University Grants Commission's Merit Promotion Scheme be accepted with incorporation of the modification suggested by the Vice-Chancellor of the said university in his letter of 31-5-1983, namely, (1) the process of screening by experts preceding the Selection Committee be dispensed with in the interest of expedition, (2) there would be no condition of unanimity at the Selection Committee or among the experts serving on it, and (3) the University Grants Commission be approached to raise the ceiling of 33.3% whenever this should become necessary. Pursuant to this recommendation of the Academic Council, the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18-20th of February, 1984 approved the above recommendation of the Academic Council. The Executive Council also decided that if the University Grants Commission accepts or announces any concessions in its scheme to other Central Universities, including Delhi University, these will be applicable to the Aligarh Muslim University also.;