M.KATJU , UMESHWAR PANDEY, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri R, N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State Government, Sri P. S. Baghel for Allahabad University and Sri Ashok Khare for the newly impleaded respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.11.2003 Annexure -6 to the writ petition. By that order the Secretary, Higher Education, U. P. has directed that the recommendations of the Selection Committee of Allahabad University with regard to the Career Advancement Scheme for promotion from the post of Reader to Professor shall not be placed before the Executive Council of the University. The petitioners have alleged in para 4 of the petition that they are Readers in various departments in the Allahabad University and are fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme. It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that 182 cadre posts of Professors, Readers, and Lecturers which were lying vacant in the Allahabad University were advertised for being filled up by way of direct recruitment. Apart from the aforesaid, applications were also invited for grant of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme/Personal Promotion Scheme from eligible persons. In pursuance of that advertisement and the circulars, several candidates applied including the petitioners for being considered for grant of promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme/Personal Promotion Scheme.
(3.) IT is alleged in para 7 of the petition that the State Government on 10.9.2003 had stayed all selections and appointments in the University vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition. This was because the State Government had stayed all selections and appointments in the University on the posts of Lecturers, Readers, and Professors on a complaint of one Dr. Pankaj Kumar, lecturer in Political Science in the University. It is alleged in para 9 of the petition that this order dated 10.9,2003 was wholly without jurisdiction and if Dr. Pankaj Kumar had any grievance, he should have preferred a representation under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act before the Chancellor.;