R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) University Grants Commission sponsored the Merit Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) for the University under which a teacher, if eligible in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down therein, was entitled to be promoted to the higher post, provided he is selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the University. For implementing the Scheme promotion used to be made in different rounds and for each round a cut-off date was fixed with reference to which the eligibility qualifications of the teacher was required to be considered. Between 1983 and 1987 the following four cut-off dates were fixed : JUDGEMENT_60_LAWS(ALL)7_1993_1.html
(2.) Petitioner, who was appointed as A Reader in January, 1977, became eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme with reference to the third cut-off date, namely, 31-3-1985. He accordingly applied for promotion under the Scheme and was interviewed on 17-9-1985 by the Selection Committee constituted by the University. As the Selection Committee which interviewed the petitioner and other candidates was not constituted in accordance with law inasmuch as one of the Expert was not even a Professor and was not competent enough to be an Expert for selection of a Professor the Executive Council did not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and referred the matter to the visitor, who is President of India, for quashing the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The visitor vide order dated 16-10-1987 declared the recommendation of the Selection Committee as invalid and directed for constitution of a fresh Selection Committee for interviewing the candidates for promotion to the Post of Professor in she Department. The University however, did not take any action for constituting the another Selection Committee for considerable long time and it was only on 21-1-1989 when the candidates including the petitioner were interviewed by the new Selection Committee. This Selection Committee selected the petitioner and recommended his case for promotion to the post of Professor. These recommendations were not, however, considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 4/5-3-1989 inspite of the request in that respect made by the petitioner in his representation dated 3-3-1989 to the Vice-Chancellor. It was only in the meeting of 30/31-7-1989 that the matter of promotion of the petitioner was taken up and approved by the Executive Council and an appointment letter dated 2-8-1989 was accordingly issued to him appointing him with effect from 4-3-1989. The petitioner represented against the date of his appointment and requested for giving him appointment with effect from 23-9-1985. No action having been taken by the University, petitioner made representation dated 25-1-1990 to the visitor. The visitor has also not taken any decision on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition praying for writ of mandamus directing the University to treat him as having been appointed as Professor with effect from 23-9-1985.
(3.) University has filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;