- (1.) HEARD Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5; Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3; and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 7 and with their consent this Writ Petition is being disposed off.
(2.) AT the outset Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be allowed to delete the name of Respondent No. 6, as he has got nothing to do with this case. The claim of the Petitioner is for a direction upon the concerned authority to promote the Petitioner from the post of Lecturer to the post of a Reader as he has already been screened by a Selection Committee constituted by the University and also because that Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner on 19.6.2001. The grievance of the Petitioner, amongst others, is that other Lecturers, some of whom, were even junior to him, have been promoted to the post of Readers without taking into consideration the case of the Petitioner.
(3.) A Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (beginning at running page 35) shows at paragraph 10 that these Respondents, namely, the Vice -Chancellor and the Registrar of the University, have admitted that the Petitioner is entitled for his time bound promotion with effect from 7.3.1993 and that no sooner the Commission gives its concurrence, the promotion of the Petitioner would become effective from that date.;