R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) The University Grants Commission sponsored Merit Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) for promotion to the higher post of the teachers, who were eligible for promotion in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Scheme. Petitioner, who was the Reader in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in the Institute of Agricultural Science (hereinafter referred to as the Department), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the University) and was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme, was considered and selected on 23-9-1983 by the Selection Committee constituted by the University for promotion to the Post of Professor in the Department. The meeting of the Executive Council of the University took place on 30-9-1983/1-10-1983 ; but the petitioners case for promotion under the Scheme was not considered but the names of other persons, who were also selected by the Selection Committee for promotion under the Scheme were considered and approved and they were granted promotion. It was only on 25-2-1984 that the Executive Council considered and approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee regarding the petitioner and granted him promotion to the Post of Professor under the Scheme. As the petitioner was granted promotion by the Executive Council only on 25-2-1984, he became junior to those, whose promotion was approved by the Executive Council in its earlier meeting held on 30-9-1983/1-10 1983. Petitioner accordingly made representation before the University authorities for refixation of seniority and no action having been taken on that representation, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of on 2-4-1991 with the direction to the Executive Council to decide the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner claims to have filed the certified copy of the above order of this Court along with the fresh representation but no decision was taken by the Executive Council and the reminders sent by him remained unneeded. The Executive Council on 28/29-9-1991 considered the petitioners representation and passed a resolution in connection therewith granting him a notional seniority with effect from 19-10-1983 with the condition that he will not be given financial and other benefits and the administrative arrangements already made will not be disturbed. Being aggrieved, petitioner challenged the above resolution dated 28/29-9-1991, so far as it has denied him the financial and other benefits such as appointment to the post of Dean.
(2.) The University has filed a counter affidavit in which passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 28/29-9-1991 is admitted ; but it has been stated that on 30-11-1991/1-12-1991 the Executive Council decided to withhold the above resolution and appointed an One Man Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner and submit the report and after the report was received the Executive Council again on 27/28-6-1992 rescinded the above resolution dated 28/29-9-1991 and rejected the representation of the petitioner. It is this resolution by which the petitioner is now aggrieved.
(3.) Executive Council of the University has passed the following resolution on 15/16-5-1987 : "Resolved still further that the effective date of appointment of teachers appointed under Merit Promotion Scheme would be the date on which the Executive Council met subsequent to the Selection Committee Meeting." According to the above resolution the date of appointment of the teachers under the Scheme would be the date on which the Executive Council met subsequent to the meeting of the Selection Committee. In the case of the petitioner the Selection Committee met 28-9-1993 and the first meeting of the Executive Council was thereafter held on 30-9-1983 and 1-10-1983. Petitioner was as such entitled to be appointed in accordance with the above resolution with effect from 30-9-1983/1-10-1983. Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of promotion with effect from the aforesaid date merely because the Executive Council did not consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee in the aforesaid meeting. Criteria laid down by the Executive Council has to be uniformally applied and no teacher can be penalysed or denied the benefit of the seniority merely on account of the inaction on the part of the Executive Council If the seniority of a teacher has to depend on the date on which the Executive Council approves the recommendation, there may be different dates for different teachers depending on the date on which their cases are considered by the Executive Council. - Such a procedure will result in arbitrariness and discrimination and as such, has to be avoided. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Roy v. Vice-Chancellor Banaras Hindu University, 1986 Alld LJ 1111, wherein it was laid down as under : "Under the scheme teachers desirous being considered for merit promotion have only to present their work to the University latest by 31st December each year or a date stipulated by the University and thereafter they had no control over the subsequent proceedings Under the scheme University should generally take decision in their matter by the end of that academic session but if in does not take decision by that time they have got no machinery to compel it to do so. Since the scheme does not require the University to take decision necessarily before the end of that academic session it can easily delay the matter as has been done in these cases. The University has failed to take decision not by the end of that particular academic session but for the whole of the next academic session for no ostensible reasons, if the claim of the petitioners for promotion of on the basis of their initial presentation made in January-February, 1983 was considered by the end of June, 1983 as required under the scheme then this situation would not have arisen. For this reason also we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the University that one year period under Clause (b) of Para 2 of the Scheme should be counted from the date of rejections of the claim of the petitioners for the first round of promotion and not from the date of their initial presentation. The interpretation of Cl. (b) put by the learned Counsel, if accepted, will give a long handle to the University authorities to harass the teachers, who though meritorious but ate not of their favour by delaying decision in their cases which will affect not only their seniority in the University but may also result in delay of their promotion in the next higher cadre. They may further jeopardise the interest of such teachers by expediting the decision in the cases of the teachers of their favour which the University Grants Commission would have never intended to permit.";