D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.1 in writ petition No. 594 of 2015. This writ petition was preferred by respondent no.1 (original writ petitioner) with the following prayers: "(i) For promotion to the post of the University Professor w.e.f. 10.7.1988/10.7.1997 with all consequential benefits under 16/25 years Time Bound Promotion Scheme of the Statute 4032 dated 24.12.1986 in view of the applications of the petitioner submitted from 2000 onwards including the one dated 10.2.2014 made in response to the notification dated 5.12.2013 as per the Syndicate Resolution No.707/2013 inviting applications from Readers for promotion to the posts of University Professor under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme and for quashing the report of the screening committee dated 1.7.1998 (Annexure-5 herein) as the same being arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and void. (ii) For payment of the salary arrears dues of the petitioner of about Rs.1,64,432/- in Professor's scale of pay for the period February, 1993 to September, 1996. (iii) For any other appropriate relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and enquity."
(2.) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that initially, the father of respondent no.1 was appointed as Lecturer. Thereafter, he was given promotion as Reader and now he is seeking promotion on the post of Professor. It further appears from the facts of the case that provisional promotion was given to father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) with effect from 10th July, 1998. The said promotion order is at Annexure-4 and it has been mentioned in Annexure-4-provisional promotion order that "If the University Service Commission does not concur in his/her promotion the provisional promotion so made shall cease to be effective immediately."
(3.) Thus, the provisional promotion was given which was subject to the final approval to be given by the University Service Commission. In the facts of the present case, such approval or concurrentment was never given by the University Service Commission.;