- (1.) PRADEEP Kant, J. The petitioner Dr. (Smt.) Seshu Lavania and Dr. PRADEEP Kumar Misra, who were appointed as Lecturer in Botany in Lucknow University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the University) through one and the same selection with effect from November 25,1985, on which post they were confirmed, vide order dated 22. 2. 1988 with effect from 15. 1. 1988 and were later on given Senior Scale of Lecturer (Rs. 3,000-5,000), vide order dated 26. 8. 1991 with effect from 25. 11. 1990 under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per G. O. dated 7. 1. 1989 and thereafter were promoted on the post of Reader through a selection committee in the year 1999, but the Selection Grade (Rs. 12,000-18,300) was given to them with effect from 25. 11. 1998, i. e. , after 8 years of service in the Senior Scale, as per the rules, feeling aggrieved by the proposed promotion on the post of Professor of respondent No. 5, Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners are senior to the respondent in the cadre of Reader and also in the cadre of Lecturer, therefore, the promotion of the respondent to the next higher grade/cadre of Professor without considering the case of the petitioners is prejudicial to their interest and they will become Junior by such promotion and that the respondent is not at all eligible for being granted the promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as such the action of the University is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. In short, the proposed promotion of the respondent on the post of Professor has compelled the petitioners to approach the Court for restraining the University from making any such promotion.
(2.) IN support of the aforesaid main relief, the petitioners have not only pleaded that the respondent was ineligible, as per the relevant Government orders under the Career Advancement Scheme but also that he was wrongly granted the Senior Scale under the Career Advancement Scheme, vide resolution of the Executive Council dated 3. 12. 1994 and that he was also illegally and wrongly granted extraordinary leave for a period of five years, i. e. , for the period commencing from 1. 4. 1995 to 31. 3. 2000 with full pay by the University without the concurrence of the State Government and, therefore, neither the respondent could have been granted the Senior Scale of Lecturer on the date when it was granted nor his five years' break in service could have been treated to be continuous by granting extraordinary leave with full pay, which is not in accordance with the rules, which continuity having been given for the purpose of grant of Senior Scale, makes the aforesaid grant illegal. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent, who had worked as Junior Plant Physiologist allegedly under I. C. A. R. Coordinated Research Project from 4. 1. 1983 to 9. 9. 1988, was not eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as this period of service could not be counted in the University service for the purpose of such promotion. The respondent, in response, challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that admittedly the petitioners themselves were not eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Professor and, therefore, an ineligible candidate cannot challenge the selection process or the selection of a candidate who has been found eligible by the university for promotion to the next higher post of Professor in the University. His submission is that the petitioners cannot challenge either his consideration for promotion nor the actual promotion, they themselves being ineligible for being considered for the post. Refuting the pleadings of the petitioners in regard to the eligibility of the respondent, it is being vehemently urged that the respondent is fully eligible and that he having completed his, service as Lecturer and thereafter Lecturer in the Senior Scale and Reader's grade of required length cannot be divested of his right of promotion on the post of Professor merely because the petitioners feel that they are senior to him and, therefore, must be promoted on the post of Professor before the respondent is promoted.
(3.) ELABORATING the aforesaid plea it is being said that the promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme can be made only in terms of the Scheme and not otherwise and if the petitioners do not fulfil the requisite conditions for being considered for promotion on the post of Reader, their mere seniority in the cadre of Reader cannot be a ground for denying benefit of the Scheme to the respondent, who, otherwise is entitled for the said benefit under the Scheme propounded with the principal object of giving promotion to such Lecturers and Readers who fall with in the criteria, as laid down therein. Further submission is that the respondent's service history reveals that he has requisite length of service for the purpose of aforesaid promotion and that the challenge to the grant of Senior Scale to the respondent in the year 1994 and also the grant of extraordinary leave of five years for the period 1. 4. 1995 to 31. 3. 2000 are such issues which cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings and that too at such a late stage, besides the fact that the challenge on the grounds urged also does not survive and has no legal basis for holding that the respondent was allowed the Senior Scale in incorrect manner and was granted the extraordinary leave not according to rules.;