Pradeep Kant and K. S. Rakhra, JJ. - (1.) THESE are two writ petitions, one filed by Dr. Abha Trivedi and the other by Dr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava against Dr. Nina David and other statutory authorities.
(2.) THE challenge has been made to the order of the Chancellor dated 28.5.2004, by means of which the Chancellor has lifted the embargo placed by the Executive Council in implementing the recommendations of the selection committee in the matter of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme of the respondent No. 4 Dr. Nina David on the post of Reader, till such time, the petitioners of the two writ petitions are considered for such promotion. The relevant facts for the present controversy are that in the department of Western History, the petitioners as well as Dr. Nina David, respondent No. 4 were all working as Lecturers. Under the Career Advancement Scheme, along with certain other eligibility conditions, a Lecturer who has been working in the senior scale for five years would become entitled for being considered for promotion to the post of Reader. It is the case of the petitioners that though they were senior to the respondent No. 4 as Lecturers and were eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme, their cases were not considered and the respondent No. 4 was given the benefit of the aforesaid scheme and thus, an attempt was made by the University to make the petitioners junior to the respondent No. 4 in the Reader's grade.
(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Sri S. K. Kalia has submitted that it is incorrect to say that Dr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava was senior to the respondent No. 4 Dr. Nina David, whereas he admits that Dr. Abha Trivedi was senior to the respondent No. 4 as Lecturer but since senior scale in the Lecturer grade was not awarded to Dr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, which was also not available to the other petitioner Dr. Abha Trivedi, none of them could be said to be eligible on the date when the case of respondent No. 4 was considered for promotion on the post of Reader. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also submitted that on 19.2.2004 itself, one selection committee was called for, for considering the case of both the petitioners for being granted senior scale in the Lecturer's grade and on that date itself, the case of the respondent No. 4 was considered for promotion to the post of Reader and, therefore, argument is that the petitioners could not have been eligible for being considered for the post of Reader on that date, and if they being not eligible, were not considered for promotion under the scheme on the post of Reader, no illegality can be said to have been committed.;