PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE on same set of facts similar controversy has been raised, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as prayed by counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE matter relates to consideration for personal promotion under Career Advancement Scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as Commission) for promotion to the post of Professor from the post of Associate Professor. After scheme been framed by the University Grants Commission criteria for consideration for such promotion was earlier fixed by the Commission on 19. 5. 2001. THE norms and criteria was however subsequently revised vide order dated 21. 5. 2002. A corresponding notification was also issued by the respondent-University on 20. 7. 2005. THE revised criteria was to be made effective from 1. 3. 2002. It appears that as per criteria laid down earlier in the year 2001, the respondent-University gave promotions to some of the persons under Career Advancement Scheme. Various writ petitions came to be filed before this Court alleging non- consideration under the scheme as per criteria of 2001 giving the benefit to the junior persons. The writ petitions came to be allowed by this Court with the direction to the respondent- University to consider the petitioners before this Court also and if found eligible, the benefit be given from the date the junior persons been so promoted. The confusion and complications arose only when the implementation of directions of this Court was to be made. In one of the writ petitions, this Court also directed the respondents to consider all those eligible persons also who might have not approached this Court. On one hand this Court directed to give the benefit to all the eligible persons from the date the junior persons were so promoted and on the other hand, the Commission insisted that since fresh consideration is to be made, the entire exercise has now to be done as per the fresh criteria laid by the Commission vide order dated 21. 2. 2002. Under these circumstances, when the entire process had already been initiated by the respondent-University, a letter came to be issued by the Commission on 25. 5. 2007. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced as under:-      " Since the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has never indicated in any of its judgments, referred above, that the selection of Professor from among the Associate Professor may be done as per the regulation prevalent in 2001, the suggestion made by you vide your letter dated 15. 5. 2007 that "interview for the promotion of Associate Professors to the post of Professors under CAS according to the prevalent UGC Rules of that time i. e. 2001" is not tenable. You are, therefore, requested to conduct the interviews for promotion from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor under CAS in accordance with the UGC regulations which are in existence today. " Since the interviews scheduled from 26th May to 4th June, 2007 are to be conducted by the University as per UGC Regulation, 2001, you are advised to postpone the interviews with immediate effect and the candidates be informed accordingly. However, the interviews under CAS may be conducted inviting all eligible candidates for such promotion in accordance with the existing rules. " The entire process thus came to stand still. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the above directions of the Commission to the extent that the consideration as per directions of this Court is to be made as per UGC Regulations which are in existence today, more particularly, the criteria laid down in order dated 21. 12. 2002. This Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4139/2007 after issuing notices passed the following interim order on 10. 9. 2007:-      " The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 25. 5. 2007 (Anx. 5) of the University Grants Commission whereby a direction has been issued to conduct interview for Professor under Career Advancement Scheme after inviting all the eligible candidates for such promotion under the existing rules. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the U. G. C. had issued a letter on 22. 5. 2007 and in last part of the same it has been mentioned that specific cases in which the High Court has directed the University to follow the old rules may only be considered under the earlier Scheme. For rest of the cases, new procedure may be followed irrespective of eligibility. Counsel further submits that this Court in the case of Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. UOR Writ Petition No. 5471/2001 decided on 24. 11. 2005 has directed the University of Rajasthan to make promotion according to the prevalent UGC regulations under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from the date junior persons were given promotion. There is no dispute that promotions were given with effect from 19. 5. 2001 and counsel for the University has also fairly submitted that they are going to consider cases of other eligible persons in accordance with the UGC regulations which were in force on 19. 5. 2001 and which criteria was made applicable to junior persons. Similar direction was also issued by this Court in Arvind Kumar vs. University of Rajasthan Writ Petition No. 5859/2001 decided on 12. 1. 2006 wherein one more fact and legal position was considered by this Court and the Court has observed that the employees cannot be forced to approach the Court to get necessary directions for each and every benefit they are otherwise legally entitled to. I have considered the above mentioned submissions of the parties and in view of the two final judgments of this Court in compliance of which the UGC has issued direction on 22. 5. 2007 but subsequently modified the same on 25. 5. 2007 to the prejudice of the petitioner without any appeal against the aforesaid judgment, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has a strong prima facie case for relief of staying operation of the letter dated 25. 5. 2007 issued by the UGC. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner who ought to have been promoted in the year 2001 are still waiting for their turn which is causing irreparable loss to them. In view of the above, operation of the letter of the UGC dated 25. 5. 2007 shall remain stayed and the respondent University is directed to consider the cases of all Associate Professor eligible under old Rules as applicable on 19. 5. 2001 for the post of Professor. It is expected that the University of Rajasthan will now complete the exercise for promotion to the post of Professor within two months from today. "
(3.) MR. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University submitted that by the above directions of the Commission the University authorities are in a fix. On one hand, they have to comply with the directions of this Court and the benefit has to be extended to all eligible persons from the date the juniors have been so promoted and in many cases the junior persons had been given benefit as per criteria laid down by the Commission in the year 2001, on the other hand, the Commission which is the controlling authority of the scheme is insisting upon consideration as per existing criteria. Mr. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission submitted that the persons becoming eligible prior to 1. 3. 2002, the cut off date fixed for revised criteria as per order dated 21. 2. 2002 may be considered as per the criteria prevalent prior to the above date since the Court has issued directions for giving benefit to the eligible persons from the date the junior persons if any have been so promoted as per earlier criteria, however, the persons becoming eligible after the cut off date i. e. 1. 3. 2002 have to be considered and given promotion only as per the criteria fixed by the Commission vide order dated 21. 2. 2002. It has been submitted that as per interim order passed by this Court the candidates becoming eligible after 1. 3. 2002 have also to be given benefit as per earlier criteria which is not the intention of the scheme or the Commission. After having considered submissions of counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the circulars and notification issued by the Commission as also the respondent-University. ;