Holding

Merit‑promoted Readers and Professors are ex‑cadre employees distinct from direct recruits and cannot be placed on a common seniority list; doing so violates Articles 14 and 16(1).

Summary

The appellants, teachers promoted to Reader and Professor under the University Grants Commission's merit promotion scheme, were placed senior to directly recruited faculty in Vikram University's seniority list. The directly recruited respondents challenged this placement, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the deletion of the appellants' names from the combined seniority list. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that merit‑promoted teachers are "ex‑cadre" employees who form a distinct class from direct recruits; they cannot be treated as equals for inter‑se seniority because the University Act of 1973 contemplates only direct recruitment. Consequently, fixing seniority on the basis of continuous officiation violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court ordered that the combined seniority list be deleted and affirmed that no compensation is payable and the pay scales of the merit‑promoted teachers should not be reduced.

Issues considered

Whether merit‑promoted Readers and Professors can be treated as the same class as directly recruited Readers and Professors for the purpose of fixing inter‑se seniority.
Whether the University can create a combined seniority list for both categories without amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Whether the respondents are entitled to compensation for alleged harassment.
Whether the pay scales of merit‑promoted teachers should be reduced.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1)
Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973s. 19, s. 23, s. 24, s. 34, s. 35, s. 49, s. 6(30)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12

Subjects

senioritymerit promotion schemeuniversity teachersex-cadreArticles 14 and 16inter se seniorityservice lawMadhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya AdhiniyamUniversity Grants Commission

Judgment

A DR. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA AND
DR. B.D. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
v.
VIKRAM UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

APRIL 30, 1995
B
(P.B. SAWANT AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Service Law :

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16 (1) Seniority-Merit
C promoted Readers and professors-Ex cadre employees-form a distinct class
as compared to direct recruits-Cannot be treated equally with direct
recruits-Competition can only be amongst direct recruits-Fixation of inter
se seniority between them on the yardstick of continuous officiation was
illegal
D
Madhya Pradesh Vishwavitzyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 :

Sections 6(30), 49 and Statute 16(2)-Merit promotion scheme--
Readers and Professors-Not contemplated by the Act-No power to create
additional posts for being reserved for merit promotees-flowever, the same
E can be created by suitable amendment of the Act.

Section 19-Merit promoted Readers and Professors-Cannot claim
any inter se seniority and promotion with direct recruits-However, their pay,
work and status would remain at par with direct recruits.

F The appellants were promoted professors and Readers under a merit
promotion scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission. The
respondents were appointed to the posts or professors and Readers on
subsequent dates as direct recruits. The University published a seniority
list in which the appellants were shown as senior to the respondents. The
G respondents flied a writ petition before the High Court challenging the said
placement in the seniority list which was allowed. Aggrieved by the judg·
ment or the High Court the appellants preferred the present appeals.

On behalf or the appellants it was contended that Section 49 or the
Madhya Pradesh Visbwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 took in its sweep even
H departmental candidates; that some universities had issued Ordinances
572
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY 573

creating new source of recruitment by departmental promotion of univer- A
~ity teachers; that merit promotion scheme was formulated to avoid stag·
nation and heart burning; that the merit promotion scheme was a
temporary extension of the cadre of Professor or Reader; that as per
statute 16(2) of the Act the seniority of merit promotee Professor or
Reader should be determined on the basis of length of continuous service B
in the concerned cadre; that the merit promotees, having been selected by
the same selection committee for direct recruits, could not be dis·
criminated against in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority; that under
Section 6 read with Section 34 of the Act the university had power to create
posts of Readers and Professors through promotion; that the University
Grants Commission had left the question of fixation of inter se seniority or C
merit promotees and direct recruits to the University; that on doctrine of
promissory estoppel merit promotees should be treated at par with direct
recruits; and that once the concerned incumbents were promoted as
Readers or Professors they were entitled to work as snch and draw the
same pay as directly recruited Readers and Professors. D

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Section 49 of the
act did not contemplate any promotion; that the merit promotion scheme
which was formulated later on could not be encompassed by Section 49 or
the Act; that there could not be a combined seniority list or merit
promotees and direct recruits as the former stood outside the cadre; that E
merit promotees formed a separate distinct class as compared to direct
recruits; that there was a difference in the pay scales of merit promotees
and direct recruits; that the merit promotion was a personal promotion to
the promotee which ceased with his employment; that the merit promotees
were ex-cadre employees and could not be treated equally with direct
F
recruits for seniority; that unless the Act is amended there would be no
question of merit promotees entering tJte cadre of direct recruits; that
compensation be awarded to the respondent fo~ harassment by the Univer-
sity; and that the pay scales of merit promotees be reduced..

Dismissing the appeal, this Court G

HELD : 1. The promotee Readers and Professors do not fall in "the
same class as directly recruited Readers and Professors. The following
distinct characteristics _between merit promotees and direct recruits
Readers and Professors become at once visible : H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A (i) The directly recruited Readers and Professors fill up the vacan-
cies in the cadres of Readers and Professors for which direct recruitment
is resorted to. While the promotees under the merit promotion scheme
stand outside the cadre and fill no posts as such, since no posts are
created. The promotions given to them are ·purely personal and the posts
to which they are upgraded du not survive their service career. The posts
B vanish with the incumbent person like the shadow vanishing with the
substance. Such a promotee fills up no vacancy in the promotional avenue
since no post is available by promotion. [613-B, C]

(ii) The directly recruited Readers and Professors recruited pur-
C suant to the only source of appointment contemplated by Section 49, that
is by way of direct recruitment. The promotee Readers and Professors are
appointed not in the cadre posts but under an entirely different scheme,
namely merit promotion scheme. Even under this scheme, no posts a~ such
are created. Those selected under the scheme are given perscnal posts
which cease with their employment. In fact, the posts from which they are
D promoted do not become vacant and none can be appointed· to the said
posts while they hold the higher posts. [613-D, E]

(iii) Pay scales of promotee Professors and Readers are different
from the pay scales of directly recuitrd Readers and Professors at least
E after coming into operation of the career advancement scheme. This dif-
ference in the pay scales itself is a distinct feature so far as promotees under
the merit promotion scheme on the one hand and the directly recruited
Readers and Professors on the other hand are concerned. [613-F, 614-A]

(iv) The promotee Readers and Professors are not holding any
F officiating of even temporary post of Reader or Professor nor is there any
temporary addition to the cadre strength of Readers and Professors.
[614-B]
(v) The work load of directly recruited Reader and Professor is
different from the work load of promotee Reader or Professor for whom
G the work load of a Reader or Lecturer as the case may be would still have
to be shared as no vacancies are created for being filled in the cadres from
which snch promotions are effected. [615-C]

(vi) There is a qualitative difference in the process of selection of
direct recruits under the scheme of Section 49, as compared to the
H promotion of the merit promotees. Although for the latter the infrastruc-
RASHMISRIVASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY 575

ture of Selection Committee under Section 49 may be made available, the A
criteria for their promotion are entirely _distinct and different as envisaged
by the guidelines governing the merit promotion scheme. [614-D)

(vii) There is no question of promotee Reader or Professor being put
on probation. There is further no question of confirming them in the
concerned posts as they do not occupy any post as such in the promotional B
avenue. This is unlike the direct recruits. [614-EJ

2.1. The relevant provisions of the merit promotion scheme and the
relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam,
1973 clearly show that when the Act was enacted in 1973 the State Legis- C
lature had not contemplated any promotion of a Lecturer as Reader or
Readers as Professor as the case may be. All the relevant ordinances and
statutes will therefore have to be read in that light. Section 49 of the Act
as enacted cannot take in its sweep even departmental promotees. A mere
look at Section 49 of the Act shows that the Members of the Committee of D
Selection as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 49 have to inves-
tigate the merits of the various candidates and to recommend to the
Executive Council the names if any, of persons whom they consider
suitable for the posts, arranged in order of merit. Sub-section (5) mentions
that out of the names so recommended under sub-section (4) the Executive
Council shall appoint persons in order of merit. This clearly contemplates E
an open market recruitment procedure by way of direct recrnitment and
candidates selected will have to be pointed in order of merit. It is obvious
that there would be no occasion to consider the question of inter se merit .
of a departmental promotee and a direct recrnit. It is also pertinent to
note that in the year 1973 the subsequent merit promotion scheme of 1982 F
would never have been under contemplation of the Legislature. It must
therefore be held on a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the
Act that only one source of recruitment of un_iversity teachers namely,
Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated and that
source is by way of direct recruitment. If that is so and if under merit G
promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission which was
adopted by the respondent university, any departmental candidate is to be
promoted, he would be so promoted de hors Section 49 of the Act and would
obviously be an ex cadre Reader or Professor as the case may be. Once
that ltappens it would be obvious that there would be no occasion to ftx ·
the inter se seniority of directly recruited Readers and Professors who are H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A holding cadre posts and ex cadre merit promoted Readers and Proressors
who would stand stand outside the cadre. [607-F to H, 608-A to DJ

2.2. The respondent tried to ruse the inter se seniority or both these
classes or employees. And that itself amounted to treating unequals as
equals. It clearly offended the provisions or Articles 14 and 16(1) or the
B Constitution or India. Unless Section 49 or the Act is suitably amended
and a separate source of recruitment by way or internal promotion is
contemplated by the Act there would remain no occasion or undertaking
any exercise or fixing inter se seniority between ex cadre employees and
cadre employees. The Act nor any ordinances or statutes or respondent
C university even remotely whisper about creation of a separate recognised
source of recruitment of Professors and Readers by way of departmental
promotions. It is true that in some or the universities even ordinances
have been issued accepting such new source or promotion scheme. But
even if it is so that would make difference as it is the parent Act, namely,
University Act concerned which should contemplate creation or new
D source or recruitment by way or departmental promotions or university
teachers. Unless that is done mere issuance or ordinances or statutes to
that effect which to that extent would conOict with the parent Act would
be or no avail and would be an exercise in fntility. They would also be ultra
vires the Act. [608-E to H, 609-A]

E 2.3. It is true that for avoiding stagnation and heart burning promo-
tional avenues should be made available in any service. It is to be seen
whether the University Act has made such a Provision. Ir a provision is
made then there would be no difficulty but in the absence or such a
provision mere availability or merit promotion scheme cannot elevate the
merit promoted Reader or Professor to the cadre or such Readers or
. F Professors as the case may be. They would remain ex cadre employees who
cannot claim any inter se seniority with direct recruits forming the con-
cerned cadre. (609-E to Fl

Dr. Ms. 0. Z. Hussain v. Union of India, (1990] Supp. SCC 688,
G referred tu.
2.4. It is not correct that under the merit promotion scheme though
the promotions were personal, to that extent there was a temporary
extension or the cadre or Reader or Professor as the case may be or that
they were special promotions. The very guidelines or the scheme suggest
H that a merit promoted Reader or Professor will he treated to have a
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIK.RAM UNIVERSITY 577

personal promotion. It will not create any addition to the cadre not it will A
create any vacancy in the lower cadre from which he or she was promoted. .-
The work load has to be so distributed as not to require any additional
staff. But ultimately the effect thereof would be that once a merit promoted
Reader or Professor goes out of service there will be no post which will fall
vacant in the promotional avenue. Consequently, it cannot be said that B
there was any temporary addition to the cadre strength of Reader or
Professor as the case may be. (609-F to H, 610-A)

S.B. Patwardhan and Anr. v. Siate of Maharashtra & Ors. and KV.
Ramkrishna and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. and M.G. Raichur and
Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1977] 3 SCC 399, held inapplicable. C

2.5. Staute 16 of the Act is also of no avail for the simple reason that
statute 16 deals with seniority of teachers of the university. The statute is
promulgated under Section 35(o) of the Act. Section 35(o) of the Act deals
with the mode of determining seniority for the purpose of the Act. Conse- D
quently it will have to be read with Section 49 of the Act meaning thereby
-~ when a Professor, Reader or Lecturer is recruited under Section 49 how
his seniority is to be determined can be decided in the light of the relevant
statute framed ender Section 35(0). As per clause (2) of Statute 16 the
seniority of Professors, College Professors, Readers, Associate professors
or Lecturers shall be determined in accordance with the length of con- E
tinuous service of such person in the cadre concerned taken together with
length of continuous service which is equivalent to or superior to the cadre
concerned. The word cadre as employed by Statute 16(2) is not used in a
loose sense. Statute 16(2) read with Section 35(o) and Section 49 leaves no
room for doubt, that all those Readers and Professors who were recruited F
under Section 49 as direct recruits and who enter the cadres of Professors
and Readers as the case may be shall have their seniority determined in
accordance with length of service in their concerned cadres. As merit
promotee Reader or Professor is outside the cadre there is no question of
statute 16(2) operating in bis case. It is also pertinent to- note that merit
promotee Professors or Readers form a separate distinct class as com- G
pared to directly recruited Prof~ssors or Readers. (610-C to G]

2.6. It is true that the same Selection Committee which directly
recruits Professors and Readers under Section 49(2) of the Act deals with
the question of granting merit promotions to the concerned Lecturers as H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Readers and Readers as Professors. Bnt to that extent the machinery or
infrastructure available under Section 49(2) for directly recruiting teachers
was made available for deciding the eligibility of departmental candidates
for merit promotion but that would not by itself create a new source of
recruitment for promotee Readers and Professors unless Section 49 was
B suitably amended. That has not been done till now. Till appropriate amend·
ments are effected in the concerned University Act, there would be no
occasion for considering the merit promotees to have entered the cadre of
Reader or Professor as the case may be and consequently there would arise
no occasion for consideration of the fnrther question of fixation of inter se
seniority of such an ex cadre promotees and the directly recruited Rraders
C as Professors who form the cadre concerned. (610-G, H, 611-A, 612-F, G]

Dr. Bal Krishna Aganval v. State Uttar Pradesh and Ors., JT (1995) 1
SC 471, referred to.

3.1. The aforesaid distinguishing features clearly indicate that merit
D promotee Professors and Readers form a distinct class of ex cadre or
supernumerary appointees as compared to cadre employee, namely,
directly recruited Readers and Professors. They cannot be treated equally
for all purposes and particularly for seniority and promotion if any. The
competition for seniority can only be amongst those who are in the cadre
E posts. Otherwise, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) would get violated.
(614-F, G]
The Direct Recrnit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and
·Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, JT (1990) 2 SC 264, followed,
M.P, No. 2064/89 M.P. High Court and C.W.P. No. 2558/88 Rajasthan
High Court, held inapplicable.
F
3.2. It must be held that the action of the respondent university in
fixing inter se seniority of directly recruited Professors and Readers and
merit promoted Readers and Professors on the yardstick of continuous
officiation was illegal and unconstitutional. [615-C]
G 4.1. Section 6 (30) of the Act lays down that university bas power to
create administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts to make
appointments thereto. Similarly Section 34 lays down that the Coordina·
tion Committee has power amongst others to consider matters of common
interest to all or some of the. universities. However, these provisions do
H not confer the power to create additional posts of Readers and Professors
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNNERSITY 579

for being reserved for promotee Readers and Professors nor is the power A
exercised by the university in the present case to create such posts.
[615-E, Fl

4.2. No promise was held out either by the University Grants Com-
mission or by respondent university to these merit promotees that their
inter se seniority with direct recruits in the upper cadres will be reckoned B
on the principle of continuous officiation nor is tliere anything to suggest
that but such a promise a merit promotee would not have accepted his
promotion or that he had changed his position in any manner relying on
such an alleged promise. Such a promise if any also would have been
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14(1) and 16 of the Constitu- C
tion. It is impossible to discern any promise about fixation of inter se
seniority from the fact that the University Grants Commission had left the
question of inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits to be decided
by the concerned universities. [617-H, 618-A, Bl

Paradise Printers and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and• D
Others, [1988] 1 SCC 440, referred to.

4.3. lt must be clarified that even though the merit promotees may not
be included in the seniority list of cadre employees, namely, Professors or
Readers it cannot be held that their merit promotions were of no legal effect
at all. With a view to avoiding stagnation amongst university teachers .the E
Commission recommended a scheme of merit promotion. Once a Lecturer
is promoted on merit as Reader or a Reader as Professor even though the
promotion may be personal to him he can certainly continue to work as
promotee Reader or Professor till he retires or otherwise ceases to be an
employee of the university or till he is reverted for some valid reasons. There F
is no question of such a merit promotee being reverted otherwise to the
lower cadre from which he came. He has to work as a Reader or Professor
as the case may .he and share the work load with the cadre employees. In fact
as there is no vacancy created in the lower cadre from which he came on
ace cunt of his promotion, he has also to share the burden of work load of
the lower post. Consequently it cannot be said that such a merit promotee G
is not the Reader or Professor so far as his work as Reader or Professor is
concerned. He cannot claim to be fitted in the inter se seniority list and may
remain outside the cadre of Reader or Professor as the case may be.
However, for all other purposes like pay, work and status he is a Reader or
Professor as the case may be. [619-A to E] H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 4.4. Amongst person forming the same class to which he belongs,
namely, merit promotee Readers or Professors their inter se seniority has
to be fixed on the basis of continuous officiation as such merit has to be
fixed on the basis of continuous officiation as such merit promotees. Such
a separate seniority list of merit promotee Readers and Professors has to
B be prepared and acted upon for purposes other than seniority and promo-
tion in, and to the posts available to those in the cadre. It is not as if they
are still to be treated as only Lecturers or Readers as the case may be from
which posts they got merit promotion. In short there have to be two
seniority lists, one of the cadre Readers and Professors who are direct
recruits and the other of merit promotee Readers and Professors. The
C names of the appellants in the combined seniority list will have to be
deleted. [619-G, H, 620-A, BJ

S. The respondent had not claimed in this writ petition before the
High Court any compensation nor had he filed any cross petition in this
D • Court claiming such relist. Hence no further relief can be given to him.
That apart, there is no factual basis by way of any material on record for
awarding any compensation to him for the alleged harassment suffered by
him. [620-D, E)

6. The State Government had clearly directed that those merit
E promotee Readers and Professors who got promoted under merit promo-
tion scheme bad to be given pay protection and would be entitled to draw
revised salary of Reader and Professor at par with directly recruited Reader
and Professor. The respondent bad not filed any cross petition in this Court
claiming that the pay scales of merit promoted Professors should be
F reduced. There is no justification for finding any fault with the directions
contained in the State Government Order which tried to protect the pay
scales or merit promotees who had already taken advantage or and who bad
got benelitted by the merit promotion scheme much prior lo the coming into
operation of the career advancement scheme. To say the least, it was a
discretionary order which was justified on the facts of the present case. The
G pay scales of merit promoted Professors shall not be reduced. [621-B to El

D.P. Sing/a and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and Sadhu Ram and
Others v. Union of India and Others, [1984) 4 SCC 450, V.nay Kumar Venna
and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1990) 2 SCC 647, University of Delhi v.
H Raj Singh and Ors., [1994) Sopp. 3 SCC 516, Col. A.S. Iyer and Ors. Etc. v.
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNNERSITY(MAJMUDAR,J.] 581

V. Balasubramanyam and Ors., [1980) SCR 1036, Bhey Ram Shanna and A
Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors., and Balbir Singh and Ors.
v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors., and Sohan Lal Venna and Anr.
v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors., [1994) Supp. 1 SCC 276, cited.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6001 of
the 1994 Etc. B

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.94 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in M.P. No. 208 of 1989.

V.A. Bobde, Jitendra Sharma, Mr. D.A. Dave, K. J. John, H.M. C
Singh, G. Dara, P. Gaur, S.K. Gambhir, Vivek Gambhir, Gaurab Banarjee,
Naveen Prakash and Surendra Narayana Gupta for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MAJMUDAR, J. These two civil appeals arise out of a common D
judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench.
on 23rd February, 1994. The High Court allowed two writ petitions against
Vikram University and other contesting respondents. The contesting
respondents after obtaining special leave to appeal from this court have
challenged the said common judgment of the High Court in these civil E
appeals.

A common question is involved in these appeals, namely, whether
the University teachers who have been given merit promotion as Readers
or Professors, as the case may be, can claim seniority over directly recruited
Readers and Professors on the ground of continuous offidation in service F
as Readers or Professors. The High Court has taken the view that the are
not entitled to claim such seniority and has accordingly allowed the writ
petitions moved by the directly appointed Readers and Professors. The
appellants before us are the promotee Readers and Professors under the
merit promotion scheme.
G
Factual backdrop :

In order to appreciate the grievance voiced by the appellants, it is
necessary to have a look at the relevant introductory facts leading to these
proceedings. If
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 1. Civil Appeal No. 6001/94:

This appeal is moved by the appellant who was earlier working as
Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Vikram University,
Ujjain. The said university, its Registrar and the Kulpati are respondents
1 to 3 in the appeal. A n.erit promotion scheme was formulated by the
B University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission')
which has been joined as respondent no. 5 in this appeal pursuant to notice
issued by this court. The said scheme was promulgated in the year 1982.
We will refer to the details of the said scheme in the latter part of this
judgment. It is sufficient to say at this stage that the scheme was to provide
opportunities for professional advancement of teachers working in the
C . U Diversity and who merit academic recognition. Such teachers were to be
given promotion on merit or and not on the basis of seniority.

Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the'post of
Reader on 29th June, 1985. Respondent no.4 in this appeal who was the
D writ petitioner before the High Court in M.P. No. 208/89 was appointed as
Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recriiit. He was so
appointed on 13th March, 1986. He was confirmed after a period of two
years' probation. The respondent No.l university published seniority lists
in the year November, 1986; November, 1987 and the latest list in Novem-
ber, 1988 whereunder the appellant was shown as senior to respondent no.
E 4. The appellant was placed at serial no.14 while respondent no. 4 was
placed at serial no.33. That was presumably because the appellant worked
as a promotee reader from 29.6.1985 while respondent no. 4 became
reader by direct recruitment later on 13th M"!'ch, 1986. Respondent No. 4
being aggrieved by the said placement in the seniority list filed the
aforesaid writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on
F 17th January, 1989. The respondent no. 4 prayed that the name of the
appellant be deleted from the seniority list of Readers and also from the
Board of Studies in Political Science and respondent no. 1 be directed to
determine the seniority of Readers in accordance with Statute No. 16 and
to give due seniority to the 4th respondent in the cadre of Readers. This
G petition was contested by the university as well as the appellant. As noted
earlier the High Court accepted the case of respondent no. 4 writ petitioner
and allowed the writ petition.

II Facts leading to Civil Appeal No. 6002/94 :

H The respondent no.4 in this appeal was the original writ petitioner
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAIMVDAR, J.] 583

before the High Court. He was appointed as Professor in Physics Depart- A
ment as direct recruit by respondent no. 1 Vikram University, Ujjain. His
appointment was confirmed after a period of 2 years' probation on 28th
March, 1988. The present appellants who were respondents no. 4, 5, 8 &
9 in the said writ petition before the High Court and also original respon-
dents 6 & 7 before the High Court who are respondents 5 & 6 in this B
appeal were all promoted under the merit promotion scheme formulated
by the Commission as Professors in the School of Studies, Vikram Univer-
-~ sity in various subjects. They were promoted on 12th March, 1986. As they
were promoted a day earlier than the date on which respondent no. 4
original writ petitioner respondent no. 4 was appointed as direct recruit
Professor in physics Department, the appellants and respondents 5 & 6 C
were shown as senior to original writ petitioner. The seniority lists publish-
ed by respondent no. 1 university in the years 1987 & 1988 reflected this
position. Even in the later seniority list of 1989 the appellants were shown
at serial no. 16, 18 & 20 in the seniority list while the original writ petitioner

.,
was shown at serial no. 22.
D
That brought respondent no. 4 to the High Court by way of writ
petition no. 1180/89. He challenged the seniority list on diverse grounds
and prayed for the reliefs as under : -

1. That the names of the present appellants and respondents 5 & E
6 be deleted from the seniority list of Professors and also ap-
pointment of appellant no. 1 be quashed.

2. That the respondent no. 1 be directed to determine the seniority
of Professors in accordance with the Statute no. 16 and to give
due seniority to respondent no. 4 (original writ petitioner) in the F
cadre of Professors.

This petition was opposed by respondent no. 1 university and the
contesting respondents. Respondent nos. 2 and 3, the Commission and the
State of Madhya Pradesh were also joined in the writ petition. They also G
contested these proceedings.

As noted earlier the aforesaid writ petitions raised a common ques-
tion. They were heard together by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court. By its common judgment this writ petition was also allowed
and that is how the appellants who were promotee Professors under the H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A merit promotion scheme have filed this appeal. As both these appeals
raised common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment. In civil appeal no. 6001/94
Professors working in various departments of University of Delhi have been
joined as respondents 6 to 44 and 53 to 61 in the light of an interlocutory
B application which was granted Similarly the Professors working in the
different departments in the University College of Medical Science, Delhi
have also been joined as respondents 45 to 52 at their request. While
respondent nos. 62 to 90 are also permitted to be joined at their request
in this appeal. They are professors working in different schools of studies
and sciences in this city.
c In civil appeal no. 6002/94 are joined additional respondents 1 to 19
out of whom additional respondents 1 to 3 are professors working in Devi
Ahilaya University, Indore while additional respondents 4 to 19 are work-
ing as Readers in Dr. H.S. Gaur University, Sagar and one additional
respondent Dr. S. Sivararnan is a Professor in Dr. H.S. Gaur University,
D Sagar. All these additional respondents are pe!111itted to be joined as
respondents at their request pursuant to interlocutory application number
2, 3 & 4 moved by them and granted by the order dated 9.9.94. In addition
to that there is I.A. no. 5/95 in civil appeal no. 6002/94 by which ten
applicants, working as Professors in various departments of J amia Millia
E lslimia University, new Delhi have also sought to be joined as respondents.
The said application is treated to have been allowed and they will also be
treated as additional respondents in this appeal.

Ill. Statutory Provisions :

F Before we deal with the main question posed for our consideration,
it will be profitable to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions
governing the proceedings and the impact of the merit promotion scheme
promulgated by the Commission which has brought the appellants in the
arena of contest.

G Respondent no. 1 university is governed by the Madhya Pradesh
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. English translation thereof was fur-
nished by learned counsel for the appellants. It is not in dispute that the
various universities functioning in the State of Madhya Pradesh are
governed by the said Adhiniyam. Respondent no.1 university is functioning
H at Ujjain, while Shivaji University is located at Gwalior. Sagar university to
RASHMI SRNASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAJMUDAR, J.] 585

which some of the newly added respondents belong is situated at Sagar A
town of Madhya Pradesh.

We may at this stage usefully refer to the relevant provisions of the
Adhiniyam which have a bearing on the controversy before us. Clause (iv)
of Section 4 defines an employee to mean any person appointed by the B
university and includes teachers and other staff of the university. Clause
(v) defines Executive Council to mean Executive Council of the university.
Clause (ix)· deals with statutes, ordinances and regulations of the university,
as the caBe may be, enforced for the time being. Clause (xviii) defines
University Grants Commission to mean the Commission established under
the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Clause (xx) defines teachers C
of the university to mean professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other
persons as have been appointed for imparting education and conducting
research with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or
any College or any institution maintained by the University. Section 6 deals
with powers of the university. Clause (15) of Section 6 empowers the D
university to institute Professorships, Readerships; Lecturersbips and_ any
other academic or teaching posts required by the University and to appoint
persons to such posts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Clause
(31) of Section 6 deals with the power of the university to exercise control
over the salaried officers, teachers and other employees of the University
in accordance with the Statutes and the Ordinances. Section 19 deals with E
the authorities of the University which include amongst others Executive
Council. Board of Studies. Academic Planning and Evaluation Board.
Section 23 deals with the Executive Council. Its powers and duties are
prescribed by Section 24. Clause (xx) of Section 24 deals with the power
of the Executive Council to institute such Professorships,. Readerships, F
Lecturerships or other teaching posts as may be proposed by the Academic
Planning and Evaluation Board. It is subject to the proviso that no teaching
post shall be instituted without the prior approval of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Clause (xxxii) of Section 24 deals with the
power of the Executive Council, save as otherwise provided ·by this Act, or G
the Statutes, to appoint the officers other than the Kulapati, teachers and
other employees of the University, to define their duties and the conditions
of their service, and to provide for the filling of temporary vacancies in
their posts. Clause (xiii), (xliii) and (xliv) of Section 24 refer to the powers
of the Executive Council to entertain, adjudicate upon and if deemed fit
to redress grievances of the employees and the students, to exercise such H
586 . SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R .

A other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or
imposed on it by or under this Act and to exercise all powers of the
University not otherwise provided for in this Act or the Statutes and all
other powers which are requisite to give effect to the provisions of this Act
or the Statutes. Section 27 deals with various faculties of the University in
which teaching can be imparted to the students. Section 28 deals with
B Board of Studies. Section 34 deals with Coordination Committee. Sub-sec-
tion (iv) of Section 34 deals with powers and discharging of the functions
by the Coordination Committee. Amongst others is found clause (v) which
deals with C011$ideration of matters of common interest to all or some of
the Universities. Section 35 deals with Statutes. Clause (1) provides for
C framing statutes regarding q•ialifications of Professors, Readers, Lecturers
and other teachers in affiliated colleges and recognised institutions. Clause
(o) deals with the mode of determining seniority for th.e purpose of the
Act. Section 37 deals with Ordinances and states that subject to the
provisions of the Act the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the
D matters listed in the section. At item 15 is found the topic of the duties,
qualifications and conditions of appointment including pay scales of the
teachers paid by the university.

Chapter IX of the Act deals with appointment of teaching post in
the university. Section 49 is relevant for our present purpose. It is useful
E to extract it in extensio.

"CHAPTER IX - APPOINTMENT TO TEACHING POSTS IN
THE UNIVERSITY

49. (1) No person shall be appointed :
F
(i) as a Professor, Reader, Lecturer; or

(ii) to any other teaching post of the University paid by the
University except on the recommendation of a committee of selec-
tion constituted in accordance with sub-section (2):
G
Provided that if appointment to any of :he teaching posts
aforesaid is not expected to continue for more than six months and
cannot be delayed without detriment to the interest of the depart-
ment or institution maintained by the University, the Executive
H Council may make such appointment without obtaining the recom-
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAJMUDAR, J.] 587

mendation of the committee of selection constituted ll!lder sub- A
section (2) but the person so appointed, shall not be retained on
the same post for a period exceeding six months or appointed to
another post in the service of the University except on the recom-
mendation of the said committee of selection.

Provided further that any such appointment purported to have B
been made under the preceding proviso prior to the 13th day of
February 1974 and continuing or such date shall continue till the
30th day of June, 1974 or the filling up 'of the post in accordanee
with sub-section (5), whichever is earlier.

(2) The members of the committee of selection shall be :
c
(i) the Kulapati - Chairman.

(ia) omitted.
D
(ii) omitted.

(iii) one expert in the subject, not connected with the University
in any manner whatsoever to be nominated by the Academic
Council.
E
(iv) Three experts, not connected with the University in any
manner whatsoever nominated by the Kuladhipati.

(v) the Chairman of the Ayog or a member of the Ayog
nominated by him"
F
(3) Omitted.

(4) The Committee shall investigate the merits of the various
candidates, and shall recommend to the Executive Council the
names, if any, of persons whom it considers suitable for the posts, G
arranged in order of merit :

Provided that no recommendation shall be made unless atleast
three out of the experts nominated under clause (iii) and (iv) of
sub-section (2) are present in the meeting in which such recom-
mendation is to be decided upon. H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.
A (5) Out of the names so recommended under sub- section (4)
the Executive Council shall appoint persons in order of merit".

Section 63 deals with classification of teachers. Sub-section (i) of
Section 63 provides for Professors and Readers who are said to be teachers
appointed by the Executive Council on the scales of pay not lower than
B that approved for Professors and Readers by the Commission and accepted
by the State Government and when the scale of pay approved by the
Commission is higher than that approved by the State Government in this
behaH then on the scale of pay as approved by the State Government.
Section 64 deals with terms of office of members of authority of the
C university. Sub-section (1) of Section 64 lays down that wherever in accord-
ance with this Act, any person is to hold an office or to be a member of
any authority by rotation according to seniority such seniority in the ab-
sence of any provisions to the contrary in the Act, shall be determined in
accordance with the Statutes :

D Provided that till the Statutes are made the seniority in a particular
cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service in such a
cadre and where the length of continuous service of two or more persons
in the same cadre is the same, then 'Seniority' shall be determined by
seniority in age.
E Apart from the aforesaid relevant act-provisions, Statute 16 and
Ordinance no.4 have a direct bearing on the questions posed for our
consideration. It is therefore necessary to note them at this stage, Or-
dinance no. 4 issued as Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya First Ordinance
1973 is framed under Section 37 of the Act. It deals with qualifications and
F conditions of appointment of the teachers in the university teaching depart-
ment and schools of studies. It is in dispute that the appellants and
contesting respondents have the requisite qualifications for being ap-
pointed as Readers or Professors as the case may be.

Statute 16 deals with seniority of teachers of the university. It is
G framed under Section 35 (o) of the Act. Clause (ii) of Statute 16 lays down
that the seniority of Professors and Readers in college, Assistant Professors
or Lecturers shall be in accordance with the length of continuous service
of such person in the cadre concerned (emphasis applied) taken together
with length of continuous service in the cadre which is equivalent or
H superior to the cadre concerned. Our attention was also invited to Or-
.
\

RASHMI SRN ASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAJMUDAR, J.] 589

dinance no. 4 as applicable to Jiwaji University, Gwalior. Clause 12 of the A
said ordinance provides that teachers shall be eligible for merit promotion
scheme recommended by the Commission, New Delhi. The said clause with
its sub-clauses deserves to be noted in extenso. It reads as under : -

"12. The teachers of the University shall be eligible for the merit
promotion scheme recommended by the University Grants Com- B
mission, New Delhi.

(i) Under this scheme, Lecturers and Readers who have completed
8 years of continuous services in their respective cadres as on 31st
December or any date stipulated by the University of the Calendar C
year in which the applications are invited of which atleast four
years are in the institution, can be considered.

Provided that not more than one third of the total permanent
position of lecturers and readers within a University teaching
Department may hold such merit promotions at higher level at any D
· given time. While calculating the number of positions for the
purpose of this Scheme, wherever more than point five (0.5)
fraction arises it may be rounded up as one (0.1). The readers
holding such promotion posts would not count for determining the
total posts in the cadre of readers for purpose of merit promotion
to the post of Professors. E

(ii) The promotion given to lecturers and readers under this
scheme would be personal to each individual and in the event of
his/her retirement on leaving the University, the post vacated
would be the one from which he/she was promoted. F

(iii) The excess work load of the teacher given merit promotion
will be suitably adjusted.

(iv) No advance increment shall be admissible to a teacher on
promotion under this scheme. The pay of the teachers promoted G
shall, however, be fixed in accordance with the M.P. Govt. Rules.

(v) The following procedure shall be adopted for the merit
promotion of Lecturers and Readers under this scheme.

(a) The Registrar will issue a notice ordinarily in the month of H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A November every year.

(b) The teachers desireous to be considered for merit promo-
tion should present their application in hexapulate on prescribed
form along with three sets of their Research Papers, Publications,
Books, Reviews, Curriculum Development, Teaching Aids, Innova-
B tion of teaching methods, equipments developed, etc. through their
Heads of the Department to the office of the Registrar latest by
31st December of the year the applications are called for.

(c} The Kulpati shall refer the applications together with the
enclosures to the two experts and obtain evaluation reports, which
c shall be kept confidential and placed before the committee of
selection constituted UIS 49 of Adhiniyam.

( d} The Committee of selection constituted under section 49
of the Adhiniyam shall make the recommendations after taking
D into consideration the evaluation reports, of the exp~rts obtained
by the Kulapati. The final appointment shall be made by the
Executive Council as per provisions of section 49 of the Adhiniyam.

(e) The teachers who have been considered and not selected
for merit promotion in the initial presentation, shall be allowed to
E submit his/her work only after a lapse of two years."

Our attention. was also invited to the principles for determining
seniority of teachers as laid down by Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi. Principle No.I as laid down in the resolution of the said university
reads as under : -
F
"Subject to the provisions contained in the following clauses,
the seniority of teachers appointed under Statute 27 or 28 or
promoted under the merit promotion scheme shall be determined
from the date of their appointment Gaining) or promotion to the
G post:

(i) Provided that if the date of appointment, promotion of two or
more teachers is the same, their seniority shall be determined: '•

(a) in the case of Assistant Professors, on the basis of the order
H of merit recommended by the selection committee; and
\

RASHMI SRJVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAIMUDAR. J.) 591,

(b) in the cased of Professors and Associate Professors, on the A
basis of their length of continuous service in the University in the
lower post of Associate· Professors or Assistant Professors; as the
case may be;

(ii) provided further that if both the date of appoint-
B
ment/promotion and the length of service in the lower post happen
to be the same, the seniority in age shall be given priority."

Now is time for us to refer to the relevant provisions of the. University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 under which the Commission respondent in
both these appeals is constituted. The Commission Act is enacted to make C
provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in univer-
sities. The Commission is established under Section 4 of the Act. As per
Section 12 it is the general duty of the Commission to take in consultation
with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may
think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and D
for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examina-
tion and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its
functions under the Act. The Commission may inquire into the financial
needs of Universities and allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the
Commission, grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under
a Central Act for the maintenance and development of such Universities E ·
or for any other general or specified purpose.

In exercise of its powers under the Act the Commission by its
communication dated 23rd November, 1982 recommended implementation
of merit promotion scheme for University appointed teachers in the F
Universities and by a· later communication dated 31st December, 1982
recommended a similar scheme for College appointed teachers. The.Com-
mission agree to grant Rs. 600 per annum for each person promoted in
accordance with the guidelines circulated with the said communication.
This contribution was to be made by the Commission for the remaining
period of the Sixth Five Year Plan after which the expenditure involved G
J under the scheme was to be undertaken as committed expenditure by the
University or the College concerned from its own resource or with the
assistance of grants-in-aid from the State as the case may be. The
guidelines accompanying said communications referred in their preamble
. to the role of teachers as being very crucial in the maintenance of academic H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A standards and discipline in educational institutions. That great respon-
sibility lies on the teacher to ensure that appropriate academic atmosphere
is maintained in the institution and all academic work is carried out
efficiently and with devotion as a full employee of the institution. With a
view to providing reasonable opportunities to teacher for career advance- .
me11t and recognition the merit promotion scheme was suggested. The
B basic objective of the merit promotion scheme were to be as under :

1. The basic objectives of the scheme should be

(1) to recognize outstanding work done by the university teachers in
the areas of teaching and research;
c
(2) subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subject
areas co11cerned and

(3) to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advan-
D cement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition, on a
competitive basis. The scheme therefore may be appropriately
named as "Merit Promotion Scheme for University Teachers." '
This would be in the nature of a "flexible complementing scheme"
wherein no additional posts are created, and the existing persons
on the basis of critical assessment are promoted to the next
E higher level and the position is held by such incumbents as
personal to them, and no resultant vacancy is required to be
filled. Such a Scheme would considerably encourage the teachers
to engage in advanced teaching and research and make distinct
contributions which would merit recognition and promotion.
F
For implementing the said scheme a method was suggested to the
effect that the teachers in the University Departments engaged in advanced
teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such
as to merit recognition were to be considered for merit promotion in the
first instance after completing 8 years of service in the respective cadre of
G which atleast four years should be in the institution where he or she is being
considered for such assessment and merit promotion. Any teacher who was
considered and not selected for merit promotion in any initial presentation
could submit his work after the lapse of two years. The work of the
concerned teacher including research publication, book review, curricu:um
H development, teaching aids, etc. was to be presented by individual to two
. RASHMI SRIVASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY (MAJMUDAR, J.] 593

referees in the subject discipline concerned. Referees were to be selected A
by a panel of names set up according to the procedure prescribed by the
university for Selection Committee. Merit promotion be given by the
appointing authority to a teacher only on recommendation of the Selection
Committee duly constituted after it has given due consideration to the
opinion of the referees. There should be at least two outside experts on B
the Selection Committee in the case of promotion to readers and outside
experts for promotion to professors in these cases. As per clause (I) of the
method of implementation the post ~f reader given to a Lecturer or the
position of a professor given to Reader through merit promotion would be
personal to the incumbent concerned and the main criteria for promotion
under the scheme would be the merit of the work and not the seniority of C
the teachers. As per guideline no. (3) not more than l/3rd of the number

- of total permanent position of lecturers or readers within a department
may hold such merit promotions at next higher level at any given time. The
persons holding such merit promotion would not count for determining the
total posts in the cadre of readers for the purpose of merit promotion to D
professors. As per guideline no. 6 while making selections for such promo-
tions it is not expected that the Selection Committee would recommend
any advance increment not it is expected that any rules for pay fixation on
promotion/selection to higher posts are applied to provide for increment.
Only marginal adjustment would be required to be made within the new
scale, nearest to the salary already drawn by the promotee. E

The said merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commis-
sion is said to have been accepted by all the statutory universities function-
ing in the country. So far as respondent no.1 university is concerned Govt. "
of Madhya Pradesh, Dept!. of Higher Education by order dated 13th F
March, 1984 sanctioned implementation of the merit promotion scheme for
university teachers referred to in the letter of 23rd November, 1982 of the
Commission, New Delhi from academic session 1983-84. It was mentioned
therein that expenditure incurred on this scheme will be borne by the
university upto 31st March, 1985. Commitment was given by the State that
the State Govt. will incur the expenditure on the scheme afterwards from G
1st April, 1985. The expenditure on the scheme from 1st April, 1985 would
be treated as maintenance grant. It was further directed that in order to
implement the scheme from academic session 1983-84 the university should
take appropriate steps according to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. University should see to it that the rules H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A should be framed and ensure uniformity in all the universities of Madhya
Pradesh according to the scheme. First respondent accordingly adopted
the said merit promotion scheme for its teachers. Thereafter it appears that
the concerned universities ente1 tained doubts regarding the fixation of inter
se seniority between promotee readers and professors under the scheme
B and directly recruited professors and readers under the statutory provisions
of the Act constituting such universities. In that connection that Secretary
to the Commission by its letter dated 27th April, 1984 addressed to all Vice
Chancellors of Universities conveyed the decision of the Commission at its '
meeting held on 29th March, 1984 to the effect that the Commission felt
that the question of seniority of teachers promoted under the merit promo-
C tion scheme vis a vis teachers appointed against regular recruitment be
decided by the University/institution concerned. It appears thafthereafter
this question was sought to be resolved at the level of the concerned
universities. So far as Universities situated in Madhya Pradesh are con-
cerned, by communication of the Chancellor, i.e., Governor of Madhya
D Pradesh dated 29th June, 1987 addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Avtesh
Pratap Singh University, Riwa it was informed that seniority of one Dr.
Agrawal who was a merit promotee should be fixed above the seniority of '
Dr. R.L. Singh who was later recruited as Professor. So far as respondent
no. 1 university is concerned it treated promotee readers and professors
E on par with directly recruited professors and readers and fixed their inter
se seniority on the basis of continuous officiation of the concerned incum-
bent in the post. Even the Coordination Committee for the University
endorsed that view. Our attention was also invited to Ordinance No. 4
·promulgated by Jiwaji University, Gwalior. In that ordinance as noted
earlier it is clearly provided that the teachers of the university should be
F eligible for merit promotion scheme recommended by the Commission,
New Delhi. The resolution dated 26th June, 1988 passed by the Jawaharlal
Nehru University was also pressed into service. The said resolution stated
that subject to the provisions containing the seniority of teachers appointed
under statute 27 or 28 are promulgated shall be determined from the date
G of their appointment of joining or promotion to the post. Statute 27
referred to the direct recruitment. While statute 28 referred to special
mode of appointment by Executive Council which may invite a person of
high academic excellence to accept the post of a Professor or Reader in
the university. So far as Delhi University is concerned learned counsel
H appearing for the Professors working in the Delhi University who have
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAJMUDAR,J.] 59~

been joined as respondents on their impleading applications submitted that A
the statute 6(2) framed under the Delhi University Act, 1922 authorised
the Executive Council to appoint from time to time such professors,
Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as may be
necessary on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted
for the purpose. That as per Ordinance 11, clause 8(i) all posts of teachers B
have to be filled up after advertisement by open recruitment subject to the
proviso that University may appoint Professors, Readers under the merit
' · promotion scheme of 1983 as accepted by the Executive Council in accord-
" ance with the eligibility conditions and in the manner prescribed in this
scheme. As per clause (ii) of ordinance 11 seniority of teacher in a
particular discipline etc. etc. shall be determined in accordance with the C
principles laid down therein. We were also taken to the minutes of the
Executive Council of Delhi University dated 24th April, 1983 wherein a
decision was rendered regarding selection of university teachers under the
merit promotion scheme to the effect that the composition of the Screen-
ing/Evaluation Committee for promotion ·of Lecturers to the post of D
Readers and for promotion of Readers to the post of Professors in the
University department shall. be the same as that of the statutory Selection
Committee for recruitment of teachers to such posts. Our attention was
also invited to the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the
Delhi University dated 29th December, 1990 wherein at item no. 141 was
the resolution to the effect that the recommendation of the Committee E
constituted by Vice Chancellor regarding determination of seniority. of
teachers permitted merit promotion scheme vis a vis direct recruit be
accepted as set out in Appendix-I. Appendix-I states that the committee
decided that persons appointed as Professors or Readers have to be
treated alike in the matter of seniority and cannot be placed in two F
different compartments merely because two different pay scales were
applicable to these cadres. The committee concluded that seniority in all
these cases should be determined by the date of appointment of promotion.

It therefore appears that after the merit promotion scheme of 1982
;;as adopted by all the statutory universities in the country and when the G
Commission left the question of inter se seniority between promotees and
direct recruits Professors and Readers to be determined by the concerned
university, respondent No. 1 university and other universities seem to have
taken the view that all these incumbents be treated at par and their inter
se seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous officiation in H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A the concerned post.

The scheme of merit promotion scheme of 1982 underwent a sea
change by the year 1987. The Central Govt. Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Dept!. of Education by its communication dated 17th June,
1987 to the Secretary, of the Commission informed that the Govt. of India
B had after taking into consideration the recommendation of the Commission
decided to revise the scales of pay of the teachers in Central Universities.
The revision of !lay of teachers was to be effective from 1st January, 1986.
A similar communication was addressed to the Education Secretaries of
all States regarding revision of pay scales of teachers in universities for
C maintenance of standards in higher education. It was informed that the
Central Govt. had revised the pay scales of teachers in universities and
colleges in order to attract talented teachers. A career advancement
scheme was introduced and made applicable to the teachers in the univer-
sities and affiliated colleges with effect from 1st January, 1986. As per the
annexure-1 attached to the aforesaid communication dated 17th June, 1987
D the revised scale of pay available to a Reader was Rs. 3700-125-4700-160-
5300 while the pay scale of Professor was to be Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-7300.
It was also provided therein that the existing teachers in Universities and '
colleges where the merit promotion schemes formulated by the Commis-
sion, or nay other similar scheme were in operation would have an option
E to continue to be governed by the provisions of these schemes provided
that they exercise that option in writing prior to their pay fixation under
this scheme, they would also be entitled to the designations envisaged for
various categories of teachers in these schemes, but the scales of pay would
be as follow :

F Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) Rs. 3000 - 5000

Professor Rs. 4500 - 5700

It thus became clear that with effect from 1.1.1986 because of the career
advancement scheme introduced by the Central Govt. the erstwhile merit
G promotion scheme providing for uniform pay scale then available to direct-
ly recrnited Readers and Professors as well as the merit promoted profes-
sors and Teachers was given a go-by and nnder the career advancement
scheme uniform revised pay scales were provided for Readers and Profes-
sors with a rider that those existing teachers in Universities and Colleges
H who gave in writing to be governed by the merit promotion scheme even
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNNERSITY[MAJMUDAR,J.] 597

thereafter would get the benefit of that scheme for being promoted to the A
post of professors and Readers as the case may be but their pay scales
would be lower as compared to the pay scales of directly recruited Profes-
sors and Readers. In other words, if after 17.6.1987 when the career
advancement scheme replaced the earlier merit promotion scheme, any
existing Lecturer or Reader wanted to take the benefit of merit promotion B
scheme thereafter and if he got promoted accordingly to the post of
Reader or Professor as the case may be his pay scale on the promotional
post of reader would be Rs. 3000 - 5000 as compared to the pay scale of
Rs. 3700 . 5300 available to a directly recruited Reader and so far as merit
promoted Professor was concerned his pay scale would be lower, namely,
Rs. 4500 · 5700 as compared to the higher pay scale available to a directly C
recruited Professor, i.e. Rs. 4500 • 7300. By a communication dated 6th
January, 1989 addressed by the Under secretary, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Deptt. of Education addressed to all Registrars of
State Universities a clarification was issued regarding the merit promotion
scheme. it was informed that the Govt. of India had decided that existing D
teachers in universities and colleges where the merit promotion scheme
formulated by the Commission in 1983 or any other similar scheme are in
ope~ation will have an option to continue to be governed by the provision
of these schemes provided that they exercise the option in writing prior to
their pay fixation under this scheme. They will also be entitled to the
designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in these schemes, E
but the scales of pay will be as follows :

(i) Lecturer Rs. 2200 - 4000

(ii) Reader Rs. 3000 - 5000
F
(iii) Professor Rs. 4500 - 5700

In the light of the aforesaid relevant statutory provisions and factual
data we may now turn to the consideration of rival contentions canvassed .
by the learned Advocates representing the contesting parties. G

IV. Rival contentions :

Mr. Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in civil
appeal no. 6001/94 submitted that as per statute 16 of the first respondent
university, che seniority of college Professor, Reader, etc. shall be deter- H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A mined in accordance with the length of continuous service of such person
in the cadre concerned. That cadre is not defined by the Act or the rules.
That in law even a temporary addition to the cadre during the time a
promotee Lecturer works as a Reader has to be considered to be an
addition to the cadre of Readers. That such merit promotion of a Lecturer
to the post of a Reader on pure merits and competition and through a
B Selection Committee which is the same as the Selection Committee for
directly recruited Readers under Section 49 of the Act cannot be said to
be an ad hoc or stop-gap promotion. It is a regular promotion on pure
merits and therefore the cadre of Reader can be said to have been enlarged
for talcing in its fold such promotee Readers. Once that conclusion is
C reached it becomes .obvious that for deciding inter se seniority _of such
promotee Readers and directly recruited Readers there cannot be any
discrimination. They all do the same work, they are selected on merits by
the same committee though the sources of recruitment may be different.
But their birth marks would vanish the moment they formed part and
D parcel of the same cadre of Readers. Hence, continuous officiation of the
concerned incumbents in the Readers posts would be the only relevant
yardstick for deciding the inter se seniority of promotee vis a vis directly
recruited Readers. Mr. Bobde submitted that the High Court in the
impugned judgment had patently erred in holding that the said promotee
Readers were not part of the cadre of Readers. That even though the
E promotion may be personal to the incumbent, so long as he is in service
he remairis entitled to occupy the promotional-post and to that extent there
is a net addition to the cadre of Readers.

Reliance was also placed on the decision Gf the Division Bench of
F Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ No. 2558/88 decided on 9th December,
1988 by the Bench of Mr. Justice S.N. Bhargava and Mr. Justice P.C. Jain.
The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court had taken the view that once
Associate Professors or Professors formed one category of teachers and
once their work was identical there cannot be any discrimination in con-
nection with pay scales made available to them. Whether a person is
G promotee Professor or directly recruited Professor, he has to be paid the
same time scale and a promoted Professor cannot be given lessor time
scale. Mr. Bobde also placed reliance on the decision of this court in the
case of S.B. Patwardhan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and KV.
Ramkrishna & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. and M.G. Raichur & Anr. v,
H State of Gujarat & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 399 to support his contention that
RASHMI SRNASTA VA v. VIKRA>.t UNNERSITY IMAIMUDAR, J.] 599

temporary addition to the cadre can be made by having temporary post A
included therein. In this connection, reliance was also placed on the
decisions of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association ·v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1990) 2 SCC 715 and
in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors., [1983) 3 SCC 601.
It was contended that the appellant was entitled to be treated as senior to B
respondent no.4 as she become Reader under merit promotion scheme
prior to the date on which respondent no. 4 entered the cadre of Reader
by direct recruitment. It was also contended that cmce the appellant was
promoted as a Reader even though it may be a perscmal promotion and
there may not be any vacancy of a lecturer because of such promotion, even
then she cannot be treated as merely a Lecturer for the purpose of fixation C
of seniority as has been ordered by the High Court.

Mr. Dave appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 6002/94
adopted the submissions of Sh. Bobde and further submitted that the
appellants were promoted on 12th March, 1986 as Professors under merit D
promotion scheme, while respondent no. 4, original writ petitioner who was
a Professor in a private college was directly recruited as Professor under
Section 49 of the Act on 13th March 1986 and therefore the appellants
wefe senior to respondent no.4. That the merit promotion scherile was
adopted 'by respondent no. 1 university. The Coordination Committee of
first respondent by its meeting dated 11th January, 1984 had adopted the E
said scheme. That the commission had left the question of inter se seniority
of direct recruits and promotee professors to the University. Its Coordina-
tion Committee by its meetings dated 27th and 28th October, 1988 had
decided that there should be no discrimination between teachers promoted
under merit promotion scheme and direct recruits and that such a decision
could be taken by the Coordination Committee in exercise of its power F
under Section 24 of the Act. That the Executive Council of the university
exercising powers under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act adopted this
decision of the Coordination Committee on 27th May, 1989. The State
Govt. had issued a letter on 23.9.89 wherein it was clearly stated that
Professors promoted under the merit promotion scheme before 17th June, G

- 1987 shall also be paid Rs. 4500 - 150 - 5700 - 200 - 7300 with effect from
1.1.1986 and this clarification was also adopted by Executive Council of
respondent no. 1 university in its meeting held· on 27.5.1989 by resolution
no. 179. The net result of the resolution was that a Professor under the
merit promotion scheme before 17.6.87 is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 4500
- 7300 with effect from 1.1.86 and the Professor promoted under the merit H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A scheme after 17.6.87 is to be paid the scale of Rs. 4500 - 5700. Mr. Dave
invited our attention to relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that
once a promotee is given promotion on pure merit by the very same .. -
committee which also selects direct recruits, and once the promotees prior
to 17.6.87 are entitled to the same pay scale as directly recruited Professors
there is no reason why in the matter of inter se seniority there should be
B any distinction or difference between them. Placing reliance on the
decision of this court O.P. Sing/a & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Sadhu
Ram & Others v. Union of India & Others, [1984] 4 SCC 450 it was
submitted that temporary appointees to cadre posts can also be considered
to be incumbents in the cadre as Executive Council has power under
Section 24 of the Act to create posts as laid down by clause 20 thereof.
c That cadres can be amalgamated. Placing reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
[1990) 2 SCC 647 it was submitted that once cadres are amalgamated the
incumbent of the cadre is brought in with the post.

D Learned Advocate, Sh. Sharma appearing for promotee Professors
respondents 6 to 61 in Civil Appeal No. 6001/94 submitted that the basis
of the scheme was to provide promotional advancement to avoid stagna-
tion, that though University Act did not envisage internal promotion, the
sanctioned strength of Readers and Professors can be increased by bring-
ing in promotees. Reliance was also placed on statute 37 of the Delhi
E
University and minutes of Ex Council meetings. Our attention was also
invited to the fact that one Mr. Krishna Kumar was selected as direct
recruit but he opted out for being promoted under merit promotion
scheme. Therefore it could not be said that those who are unfit to be
selected as direct recruits got a back-door entry through merit promotion
F scheme.
'
Learned senior counsel, Dr. Dhavan appearing for 56 Professors Qf
Jawaharlal Nehru University adopted these arguments. The learned Advo-
cate for promotees teachers further submitted that in the present proceed-
G ings only 1983 scheme is on the anvil and we are not concerned with the
career advancement scheme of 1987. All those who were promoted be-
tween 1983 to 1987 as Professors submit that their seniority vis a vis directly
recruited Professors cannot but be decided on the yardstick of continuous
officiation of Professors. That the scheme of 1982 is to be read with letter
H of the Commission issued in 1984 which stated that the question of inter
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY (MAIMUDAR, J.] 601

se seniority was left to the con.cerned universities. That once the concerned A
university decided to accord seniority to promotees vis a vis direct recruits
on the basis of continuous officiation the matter was at an end. That on
the doctrine of promissory estoppel neither the university nor the direct
recruits can take a contrary stand. That the Scheme of merit promotion
can be divided into two parts. The first part dealt with promotion on pure . B
merits, while the second part wherein new additional staff was not to be
created and the vacancies created on account of the promotion of the
incumbents were not to be filed was based on consideration of financial
crunch but it had nothing to do with the inter se seniority of promotees and
direct recruit Professors. That this amounted to only tightening of the belt
and in that sense the promotion can be considered to be personal. Our . C
attention was invited to the decisions of this court in the cases of University
of Delhi v. Raj Singh & Ors., (1994] Supp. 3 SCC 516 and Col. A.S. Iyer &
Ors. Etc. v. V. Balasubramanyam & Ors., (1980] SCR 1036 for submitting
that overdoing of cla<Sification should be avoided and merely on the basis
of classification the guarantee of equality under Article 14 does not get D
exhausted. Placing .;eliance on the decision of this court in the .case of
Paradise Printers and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others,
(1988] 1 SCC 440 it was submitted that this was a case of promissory
estoppel, that while getting merit promotions the incumbents were
promised by the Commission that their seniority wijl be decided by the
university .concerned and once the university had decided to give them E
seniority on the basis of continuous officiation a clear case of promissory
estoppel had arisen in their favour. That decision of Jawaharlal Nehru
University dated 28th June, 1988 in this connection was that the university
had decided that inter se seniority of directly recruited professors and
promotees should be decided on the basis of continuous officiation. That F
for seniority, entry in service was relevant as decided in the case of Bhey
Ram Sharma & Ors. v. .Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. and Balbir
Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. and Sohan Lal Venna
& Anr. v. Haryana State Electricity Boaid & Ors., (1994] Supp. 1 SCC 276.
It was therefore submitted that the High Court was patently wrong in
taking the view that merit promoted Professors and Readers could not G
stake their claim of seniority vis a vis direct recruit Professors and Readers
who formed a distinct class. or cadre within which the promotees could not
be encompassed.

Mr. Garnbhir, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A being Vikram University, its Registrar and Vice Chancellor broadly sup-
ported the arguments of learned counsel for the promotees. He contended
that once a merit promotee is promoted from the post of Lecturer to that
of Reader or from the post of Reader to that of Professor there is no
question of any reversion of such a promotee only on the ground that there
is no vacancy of a Reader or professor. That Section 49 of the University
B Act only prescribes the procedure for selection of a Reader or Professor
but is not confined to only direct recruitment of such university teachers.
That promotions given to the concerned teachers under the merit promo-
\
tion scheme are in accordance with Section 49 of the Act. Once the
Lecturers so promoted enter the cadre of Reader they would be entitled
C to further promotion on merits. Our attention was invited to the reply filed
by the university before the High Court for submitting that as original
respondent no. 4 was officiating as Reader prior to the original writ
petitioners, he was rightly shown as senior to him. He further submitted
that Coordination Committee had adopted the scheme and that resolution
of the Coordination Committee was further adopted by the Executive
D Council of the university. Mr. Gambhir further contended that statutes and
ordinances of the university are part of the Act and they can create new
source of recruitment. In this connection reliance was also placed on
Section 34 of the Act which defines powers of Coordination Committee
which can approve or reject statutes or ordinances. Jn this connection, Mr.
E Gambhir invited our attention to paragraph 10(d) of the return on behalf
of respondent no. 1 & 2 filed in the High Court. Jn the said paragraph it
was stated that the merit promotion scheme was formulated by the Com-
mission in the year 1982 and it was approved in the meeting of the
Coordination Committee by resolution no. 23 dated 29.6.1983 and it was
decided to implement this scheme in all the Universities of the State from
F the academic session 1983-84. It was also resolved by the Coordination
Committee that the scheme can be implemented without framing any
separate ordinance or statute for the purpose and that the same decision
was confirmed in a subsequent meeting of the Coordination Committee
held on 11.1.1984. Mr. Gambbir also referred to the averments made in
G paragraph lO(f) of the said counter. It has been pointed out therein that
the Coordination Committee appointed under section 34 of the Vishwa.
Vidyalaya Adbiniyam has resolved in its meeting held on 27th and 28th
October, 1988 as under :

"12.02 The Coordination Committee decided that no dis-
H crimination may be made between teachers promoted under the
RASHMI SRNASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNNERSITY [MAJMUDAR,J.] 603

Merit Promotion Scheme and those recruited under section 49 of A
-~
the Madhya Pradesh Vishva Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1972 in the
~niversities.
11

On the basis of the said resolution it was submitted that this amounted to
creation of an additional source of recruitment of teachers in the university.
In this connection Mr. Gambhir relied on the decision of this court in the B
case of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, (1990] Supp. SCC 688. At
page 691 in para 7 it has been laid down that there is desirability of having
/
.- source of promotion for any service to avoid stagnation and heart burning
and that accordingly the university had recognised this additional source
of recruitment of teachers by way of promotion under the merit promotion c
scheme. And once that is accepted on the principle of continuous officia-
lion original writ petitioner would be junior to original respondent no.4
who is appellant before us.
'
Learned counsel for the Commission Shri Banerjee submitted that D

., as per the Commission Act the function of the Commission was to suggest
merit promotion scheme to teachers in the universities to avoid heart
burning and frustration but the Commi.ssion was not concerned with the
inter se seniority of university teachers. That question was left to be
considered by the concerned universities. That the Commission in exercise
of its powers under Section 12 of the Act had recommended to the E
concerned universities to adopt merit promotion scheme and that is how
the scheme was adopted by the concerned universities. That it was not

... >
open to the Commission to direct creation of more posts in the cadre. That
the merit promotion scheme did not contemplate fixing of inter se seniority
of merit promoted teachers and directly recruited teachers. Mr. Banerjee F
-
further submitted that after the Central Government's direction to revise
the pay scales of university teachers with effect from 1.1.1986, the then
existing merit _promotion scheme remained available to the concerned
teachers to exercise their option. But in that they were to receive lessor
pay scales as promoted Readers or Professors as the case may be if their
promotions were subsequent to 17th June, 1987 when the Govt. decided to G
i revise the pay scales. That for new incumbents who are directly recruited -
:-;· as Readers or Lecturers after 17.6.1987 there was no merit promotion
scheme avail.able but only career advancement scheme was available. That
only promotee Readers or Professors who were promoted under the then
existing promotion scheme prior to 17th June, 1987 got their pay protected H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995)3 S.C.R.

A as per the decision of the M.P. Govt. Placing reliance on the decision of
this court in the case of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, (supra),
it was submitted that provision for promotional opportunities to university
teachers was essential for removing stagnation of the concerned merit
oriented teachers and that was the basis of the scheme.

B
Mr. Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4 in Civil Appeal No.
6001/94 in reply submitted that Section 49 of the Act which was enacted
years back in 1973 did not contemplate any promotions. That the merit
promotion scheme which came years afterwards in 1982 could not there- ' -.
fore be treated to have been encompassed by Section 49. That the respon-
c dent no. 4 was appointed as a direct recruit Reader pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the university. From the date of appointment on
15th March, 1986 he was to be on probation for two years. Therefore, he
was confirmed as Reader on 12th April, 1988. That merit promotion
scheme sought to grant an opportunity for promotion to Lecturers only by
D way of personal promotions. No vacancy was thereby created in the cadre
of lecturers nor any post was created in the cadre of Readers to accom-
modate such promotees, that the scheme should be read independently of
the Act. The merit promotees were occupying ex-cadre posts and conse-
quently there cannot be a combined seniority list of directly recruited
Readers who were part of the cadre of Readers and merit promotee ex
E cadre Readers who were having personal promotions as Readers. That
ordinance 4 of Vikram University promulgated under Section 37 (xv) did
not say anything about promotion. In this connection our attention was
invited to a decision of his court in the case of Dr. Bal Krishna Aganval v.
Siate of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., JT (1995) 1 SC 471 wherein it was clearly
F laid down that in case of merit promotion scheme unless university act is
amended and such a new source of promotion is contemplated therein
there would be no increase in cadre of the concerned teachers. Our
attention was also invited to Appendix I of Ordinance 4 wherein clause 6
provided for recruitment of Lecturers, Readers and professors to be made
through all India advertisement. In this connection, Mr. Singh also invited
G our attention to the reply filed by Vikram University before the High Court.
In the return in paragraph lO(a) it has been stated that respondent no. 4
was appointed Reader by promotion in accordance with the scheme which ~~
was accepted by the university. The appointment of respondent no.4 was
not on probation and therefore there was no question of her confirmation
H on the said post. Mr. Singh submitted if that was so a promotee Reader
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNNERSITY[MAIMUDAR,J.] 605

cannot have any confirmed post but would remain on personal assignment A ·
by way of promotion. Our attention was also invited to paragraph 15 of the
petition before the High Court in which it has been stated that under the
7th Five Year Plan the establishment of the teaching staff of the university;
as per the record of the university, annexed at P/10 is as follows :

Professor 18 B'

Reader 33 and
-/
Lecturer 57

Thus there only 33 posts of Readers in the university. It was contended in C
the light of the above said averments which were not denied° by, the .
university, that the 33 posts of Readers were meant for direct recruitment
and the merit promotee Readers would therefore be outside the caclie or
the sanctioned strength of Readers. In connection with resolution 12.02 of .
the Coordination Committee it was submitted that under section 34. of D
sub-section (4) such a resolution cannot .be passed by the Coordination
Commit.tee and therefore it had no force of law. It was next contend~d that
as per Section 24(xx) no post was recommended by Academic Planning
and Evaluation Board nor prior approval of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Shiksha Anudan Ayog was shown to have been obtained before creation E
of such posts to be filled up by departmental promotees un<!er the merit .
promotion scheme and therefore it would not be correct to contend that ..
there was a temporary addition to the cadre strength of Readers or
Professors as the case may be. It was further contended that the work load
of promotee Readers is different from work load of directly_ ·recruited
Readers. Even their pay scale are different from 1986. That Section 35(0) F
which dealt with seniority provision had to be read with Section 49 which
contemplated direct recruitment only. Placing reliance on the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Others, JT (1990) 8 SC 264 at page 271 (para 13) it was submitted that G
unequals cannot be treated as equals. An ex cadre employee cannot be
treated, to be a· cadre employee for determining their inter se seniority and
therefore the High Court was right in accepting the writ petition of the
direct recruit reader.

· Respondent no. 4 in Civil Appeal No.6002/94 who appeared in H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A person, adopted the line of reasoning as submitted by Shri Singh and
further contended that he was appointed as Professor of Physics pursuant
to all India competition. The post was advertised by inviting applications
and in the open competition as contemplated by Section 49 of the Act, the
appellant · candidates were rejected while respondent no. 4 were selected.
B That though the appellants were merit promoted as Professors, they were
wrongly shown as senior to him and that is why he bad to file the petition
in the High Court which was rightly allowed. That there were two posts of
Professors of Physics in 1986 and for filling up one vacancy advertisement
was issued and interviews were held. That though the Selection Committee ' -
had considered the cases of appellants for merit promotion on 13.3.86 after
C direct recruits were interviewed and recruitment was over, university had
wrongly and ma/a fide issued promotion orders to the appellants by way of
backdating them on 12.3.1986. That merit promotion was purely personal
to the incumbent. The moment the incumbent retired or resigqed or
otherwise ceased to be a merit promotee, there will be no question of
D promoting somebody else vice him. It was further contended that merit
promotion scheme cannot be implemented without ordinances or
provisions and in the absence of such a provision merit promotions granted
to the appellants were required to be quashed. That they could not be given
•
the same pay scale is directly recruited Professors. Placing reliance on the
decision of this court in Civil Appeal no. 1549/94 it was submitted that the
E abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work was illogical and consequent-
ly the judgment of Rajasthan High Court which had taken the view that
merit promoted Professors should be given the same pay scale as direct
recruits could not be sustained. He submitte.d that the university had
harassed him by showing him to be junior to promotee Professors and
F therefore he prayed for following reliefs :

(1) Respondent no. 4 be awarded compensation amounting to Rs.
17.00 Lakhs.

(2) Merit promoted Professors should be treated as additional
G Professors but not as a full-fledged Professor.

(3) Pay scales of merit promoted Professors should be reduced. •
\.
Mr. Bobde, Mr. Dave and Dr. Dhavan in rejoinder refuted the
contentions of Shri Singh and respondent no. 4 in CA. No. 6002/94 and
H reiterated their submissions in support of tl).e appeals.
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNIVERSITY[MAJMUDAR,J.) 607

V. Points for consideration : A
In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions the following points
arise for our consideration :

(1) Whether a merit promotee Reader or Professor as the case may
be in the service of respondent no. 1 university can be treated at B
par with directly recruited Reader or Professor for the purpose
of fixing their inter se seniority?
/

(2) If the answer to the first point is in the negative whether such
merit promotee Readers and Professors cannot be considered as
Professors and Readers for fixing inter se seniority of such c
promotee Readers and Professors and their seniority should be
shown only in the cadre of Lecturer or Reader from which they
are promoted?

(3) Whether respondent no. 1 university is liable to pay any compen- D
sation to respondent no. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 6002/94?

(4) Whether the pay scales of professors available to the appellants
in C.A. No. 6002/94 should be reduced?

(5) What is final order? E
We shall now deal with the aforesaid points seriatim.

Point No.I

A resume of relevant provisions of the merit promotion scheme and F
the relevant provisions of the Vikram University Act to which we have
made reference earlier clearly shows that when the act was enacted in 1973
the State Legislature had not contemplated any promotion of a Lecturer
as Reader or Reader as Professor as the case may be. All the relevant
ordinances and statntes will therefore, have to be read in that light. It is
not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for G
appellants that Section 49 as enacted can take it its sweep even departmen-
./ tal promotees. A mere look at Section 49 shows that the Members of the
Committee of Selection as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 49
have to investigate the merits of the various candidates and to recommend
to the Executive Counoil the names if any, of persons whom they consider H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3S.C.R.
A suitable for the posts, arranged in order of merit. Sub-section (5) mentions
that out of the names so recommended under sub-section (4) the Executive ,.___
Council shall appoint persons in order of merit. This clearly contemplates
an open market recruitment procedure by way of direct recruitment and
candidates selected will have to be appointed in order of merits. It is
obvious that there would be no occasion to consider the question of inter
B
se merit of a departmental promotee and a direct recruit. It is also
pertinent to note that in the year 1973 the subsequent merit promotion
scheme of 1$82 would never have been under contemplation of the Legis-
lature. It must therefore, be helc\ on a conjoint reading of the relevant '
provisions of the Act that only one source of recruitment of university
c teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is con-
templated and that source is by way of direct recruitment. If that is so and
if under merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission
which was adopted by the respondent no. 1 university, any departmental
candidate is to be promoted, he would be so promoted dehors Section 49
D and would obviously be an ex cadre Reader or Professor as the case may
be. Once that happens it would be obvious that there would be no occasion
to fix the inter se seniority of directly recruited Readers and Professois
who are holding cadre posts and ex cadre merit promoted Readers and
•
Professors who would stand outside the cadre. The first respondent by its
E impugned decision which was quashed by the High Court in the judgment
under appeal tried to fuse the inter se seniority of both these classes of
employees. And that itself amounted to treating unequals as equals. It
clearly offended the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution
of India. Unless Section 49 is suitably amended and a separate source of
recruitment by way of internal promotion is contemplated by the Act there
F would remain no occasion of undertaking any exercise of fixing inter se
seniority between ex cadre employees and cadre employees. It is not in
dispute between the parties that neither Act nor any ordinances or statutes
of respondent no. 1 university even remotely whisper about creation of a
separate recognised source of recruitment of Professors and Readers by
G way of departmental promotions. It is of course true as indicated by Dr.
Dhavan appearing for the intervenors that in some of the universities even
ordinances have been issued accepting such new source of promotion of
university teachers under the merit promotion scheme. B.ut even if it is so
\.·
that would make no difference as it is the parent Act, namely, University
H Act concerned which should contemplate creation of new source of recruit-
- RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNNERSITY[MAJMUDAR,J.] 609

ment by way of departmental promotions of university teachers. Unless that A
___.I is done mere issuance of ordinances or statutes to that effect which to that
extent would conflict with the parent Act would be of no avail and would
be an exercise in futility. They would also be ultra vires the Act. It must
therefore be held that unless the concerned university Acts under which
the universities are functioning, by suitable amendments provided for an
additional source of recruitment of Readers and Professors by way of
B
departmental promotions, mere adoption of merit promotion scheme
/
reconµnended by the Commission or mere decision of the Coordination
Committee or Executive Commitiee not to discriminate between merit
promotees and direct recruit university teachers and even issuance of
ordinances or statutes to the effect would be of no avail and will not have c
any legal effect nor would they permit the concerned universities to fuse
the cadre employees with ex cadre employees and to prepare a combined
seniority list on that basis.

It is true as submitted by learned counsel for appellants that for D
avoiding stagnation and heart burning promotional avenues should be
made available in any service as laid down by this court in number of
decisions to which our attention was invited by them. However the short
question for our consideration is whether the concerned university Act has
made such a provision. If a provision is made th~n there would be no
difficulty in the way of the appellants but in the absence of such a provision E
mere availability of merit promotion scheme cannot elevate the merit
promoted Reader or Professor to the cadre of such Readers or Professors
as the case may be. They would remain ex cadre employees who cannot
claim any inter se seniority \vith direct recruits forming the concerned
-' cadre. It is not possible to agree with the contention o_f Shri Bobde and F
Dr. Dhavan that under the merit promotion scheme though the promotions
were personal, to that extent there was a temporary extension of the cadre
of Reader or Professor as the case may be or that they were special
promotions as Dr. Dhavan would like to have it. The very guidelines of the .
scheme suggest that a merit promoted Reader or Professor will be treated
to. have a personal promotion. It will not create any additional to. the cadre G
nor it will create any vacancy in the lower cadre from which he or she was
......; promoted Tile work load has to be so distributed as not require any
additional staff. Dr. Dhavan said that this was only because of the fmancial
crunch. That may be so. But ultimately the effect thereof would be that
once a merit promoted Reader or Professor goes out of service there will H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3S.C.R.
A be no post which will fall vacant in the promotional avenue. Consequently,
it cannot be said that there was any temporary addition to the cadre
strength of Reader or Professor as the case may be. We entirely concur
with the reasoning adopted by the High Court while considering the
relevant clauses of the merit promotion scheme when it took the view that
B Readers and Professors promoted under the scheme were not entitled to
be included in the seniority list of directly recruited Readers and Profes-
sors. Reliance placed by learned counsel for appellants on statute 16 is also
of no avail to the appellants for the simple reason that statute 16 deals with
seniority of teachers of the university. This statute is promulgated under
Section 35(o) of the Act. Section 35(o) of the Vikram University Act deals
C with the mode of determining seniority for the purpose of the Act. Conse-
quently it will have to be read with Section 49 meaning thereby when a
Professor, Reader or Lecturer is recruited under Section 49 how his
seniority is to be determined can be decided in the light of the relevant
statute framed under Section 35(0). When we turn to Statute 16 we find
D that as per clause (2) thereof the seniority of Professors, College Profes-
sors, Readers, Associate Professors or Lecturers shall be determined in
accordance with the length of continuous service of such person in the
cadre concerned taken together with length of continuous service which is
equivalent to or superior to the cadre concerned. It was submitted by
E learned counsel for appellants that the word cadre as employed by statute
16(2) is used in a loose sense. It is difficult to agree. Statute 16(2) read
with Section 35(o) and Section 49 leaves no room for doubt, that all those
Readers and Professors who were recruited under Section 49 as direct
recruits and who enter the cadres of Professors and Readers as the case
f may be shall have their seniority determined in accordance with length of
service in their concerned cadres. As merit promotee Reader or Professor
is outside the cadre there is no question of statute 16(2) operating in his
case. It is also pertinent to note that merit promotee Professors or Readers
form a separate distinct class as compared to directly recruited professors
or Readers. It is true that as decided by respondent no. 1 university, the
G same Selection Committee which directly recruits professors and Readers
under Section 49(2) deals with the question of granting merit promotions
to the concerned Lecturers as Readers and Readers as Professors. But to
that extent the machinery or infrast(ucture available under Section 49(2)
for directly recruiting teachers was made available for deciding the
H eligibility of departmental candidates for merit promotion but that would
RASHMISRNASTAVAv. VIKRAMUNNERSITY[MAJMUDAR,J.] 611

not by itself create a new source of recruitment for promotee Readers and A
Professors unless Section 49 was suitably amended. That has not been done
till now. In this connection, we can profitably refer to the decision of this
court in the case of Dr. Bal Krishna Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors., JT 1995 (1) SC 471. In that case a Division Bench of this court was
concerned with the question whether Professors promoted by Allahabad B
University governed under Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973 could
claim seniority vis a vis directly recruited Professor. Under Section 31 a
merit promotion scheme adopted by Allahabad University was promul-
gated by State of Uttar Pradesh. By inserting Section 31(A) in the Univer-
sity Act with effect from 10.10.1984 a distinct source of recruitment by way
of merit promotion for Lecturers and-Readers in university was created by C
State Legislature. But that Section which created a distinct source of
recruitment by promotion was effectively brought into force from 10.10.94.
The appellant before this court was directly appointed as Professor on 9th
November, 1984 while the contesting respondents no. 4 & 5 were promoted
as Professors under the scheme by Govt. Orders dated Uth December, D
1983 and 25th February, 1984. These respondents were treated as senior
to the appellant before this court. He unsuccessfully challenged the said
. fJXation of inter se seniority before the High Court, as the High Court took
the view that the appellant had to be relegated to the alternative remedy
available under Section 68 of the Act. In appeal pursuant to leave granted ·
by this court, S.C. Agrawal, J. speaking for the Divisions Bench took the E
view that appellant was entitled to be treated as senior to the promotee
Professor as Section 31(A) was not on the statute book when the respon-
dents 4 & 5 were promoted and therefore their promotions could be
treated as valid only from 21st February, 1985 when Section 31(A) was
enforced. Before that date the appellant had already entered the cadre of p
Professors on 11th November, 1984 and therefore he had to be treated as
senior to respondents 4 & 5. In para 13 of the report the following
observations were made in this connection :

"....... We are of the opinion that in view of the provisions contafued
in Section 31-A and Section 2(14) of The Act there is no ~scape G
from the conclusion that respondents nos. 4 and 5 could not be
given promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme till the
necessary provisions prescribing the length of service and the
qualifications for such promotion were made in the statutes and
since this was done by Notification dated February 21, 1985, H
A
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme could not be
•
made prior to February 21, 1985. The Executive Council in its
Resolution No. 198 dated November 8, 1984 had accepted the
recommendations of the Selection Committee for promotion of
respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis of Government Orders dated
December 12, 1983 and February 25, 1984. At that time Section
B
31 of the Act provided for appointment of teachers by direct
recruitment and did not envisage promotion from a lower teaching
post to a higher teaching post. The orders of the Government
aforementioned could not be given effect till necessary amendment
was made in the Act making provision for personal promotion.
c This was done by introducing Section 31-A by U.P. Act No. 9 of
1985 with effect from 10th October, 1984. But Section 31(A) could
be given effect only after the necessary provision was made in the
Statutes prescribing the length of service and the qualifications for
personal promotion. This was done by the notification dated
February 21, 1985. The promotion of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to
D
the grade of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme
could, therefore, not be made prior to February 21, 1985. The inter
se seniority of the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 has to
be determined on that basis.'

E In our view the aforesaid decision of this Court is squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case. As seen above in the Uttar Pradesh Act there
is already an amendment by insertion of Section 31(A) which provided for
a distinct source of promotion. In the Vikram University Act with which
we are concerned, there is no such provision. It is therefore to be held that
till appropriate amendments are effected in the concerned universities Act
F
on the same lines as Section 31(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Act there would
be no occasion for considering the merit promotees to have entered the
cadre or Reader or Professor as the case may be and consequently there
would arise no occasion for consideration of the further question of fixation
of inter se seniority of such an ex cadre promotees and the directly
G recruited Readers or Professors who from the cadre concerned.

At this stage it would also be appropriate to consider whether the
promotee Readers and Professors under the merit promotion scheme as
'
recommended by the Commission and adopted by the university con-
H cerned, in the absence of any statutory creation of a distinct and fresh
. RASHMI SRNASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNNERSITY [MAJMUDAR, J.] 613

source of recruitment by way of promotion, can be said to fall in the same A
class as directly recruited Readers or Professor. The answer becomes
obvious. They cannot be said to be forming the same class. The following
distinct characteristics between these two classes of employees become at
once visible.

(i) The directly recruited Readers and Professors fill up the vacan- B
cies in the cadres of Readers and Professors for which direct recruitment
is resorted to. While the promotees under the merit promotion scheme
stand outside the cadre and fill no posts as such, since '10 posts are created.
The promotions given to them are purely personal and the posts to which
they are upgraded do not survive their career. The posts vanish with the C
incumbent person like the shadow vanishing with the substance. Such a
promotee fills up no vacancy in the promotional avenue since no post is
available by promotion.

(ii) The directly recruited Readers and Professors are recruited D
pursuant to the only source of appointment contemplated by Section 49,
f that is by way of direct recruitment. The promotee Readers and Professors
are appointed not in the cadre posts but under an entirely different scheme,
namely merit promotion scheme. Even under this scheme, no posts as such
are created. Those selected under the scheme are given personal posts
which cease with their employment. Infact the posts from which they are E
promoted do not become vacant and none. can be appointed to the said
posts while they hold the higher posts.

(iii) Pay scales of promotee Professors and Readers are different
from the pay scales of directly· recruited Readers and Professors atleast F
after coming into operation of the career advancement scheme as seen
earlier. To recapitulate for direct recruit Readers .revised pay scale with
effect from 1.1.86 is Rs. 3700 - 5300 while the pay scale· for promoted
Reader is Rs. 3000 - 5000. Pay scale of a direct recruit Professor is Rs.
4500 - 7300. while the pay scale of a promotee Professor is Rs. 4500 - 5700 ..
It is also to be noted that as per the letter of Under Secretary, Department G
of Education dated 1st January, 1989 the aforesaid difference in pay scales
of merit promoted teachers is clearly -brought out. It is. of course true that
as per the order of the Madhya Pradesh Govt. the pay scales of promotee
Readers and Professors who were promoted prior to the enforcement of
career advancement.scheme were protected. But for such protection they H
614 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A would not have been entitled to pay scales of directly recruited Professors
and Readers as revised under the scheme. This difference in the pay scales
itself is a distinct feature so far as promotees under the merit promotion
scheme on the one hand and the directly recruited Readers and Professors
on the other hand are concerne'1.

B (iv) The promotee Readers and Professors are not holding any
officiating or even temporary post of Reader or Professor nor is there any
temporary addition to the cadre strength of Readers and Professors.
'
(v) The work load of directly recruited Reader and Professor is
C different from the work load of promotee Reader or Professor for whom
the work load of a Reader or Lecturer as the case may be would still have
to be shared as no vacancies are created for being filled in the cadres from
which such promotions are effected.

(vi) There is a qualitative difference in the process of selection of
D direct recruits under the scheme of Section 49, as compared to the promo-
tion of the merit promotees. Although for the latter the infra5tructure of
Selection Committee under Section 49 may be made available, the criteria
for their promotion are entirely distinct and different as envisaged by the
guidelines governing the merit promotion scheme.

E (vii) There is no question of promotee Reader or Professor being put
on probation. There is further no question of confirming them in the
concerned posts as they do not occupy any post as such in the promotional
avenue. This is unlike the direct recruits.

p The aforesaid distinguishing features clearly indicate that merit
promotee Professors and Readers form a distinct class of ex cadre or
supernumerary appointees as compared to cadre employee, namely, direct-
ly recruited Readers and Professors. They are unequals not only because
of the source of their appointment but also because of the nature and
character of their appointment and of the nature of the posts which they
G hold. They cannot be treated equally for all purposes and particularly for
seniority and promotion if any. For this purpose the nature of work·they
do is irrelevant. The competition for seniority can only be amongst those \
who are in the cadre posts. Otherwise, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1)
would get violated. For these reasons, there would be no occasion to fix
H inter se seniority of merit promotee Reader~ and Professors and directly
RASHMI SRNASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNNERSITY [MAfMUDAR, J.] 615

recruited Readers and Professors by treating them as forming one class. A
Any decision rendered by the university concerned not to discriminate
~--'
between them in the matter of inter se seniority would be invalid in the
absence of any statutory creation of a district source of recruitment by
promotion by way of amending the present Act. As the first respondent is
governed by the Act which does not contemplate any statutory source of
B
recruitment by way of promotion, whatever sentiments might have been
expressed by the Executive Committee of the university for not distinguish-
ing between directly recruited Professors. and Readers on the one hand
~
and promotee Readers and Professors on the other hand in the matter of
seniority, have no legal efficacy. On the contrary, treating them at par for
seniority and promotion is violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1) as we have c
seen above. It must therefore be held that the High Court was justified in
taking the view that the action of the first respondent university in fJXing
inter se seniority of directly recruited Professors and Readers and merit
promoted Readers and Professors on the yardstick of continuous officia-
lion was illegal and unconstitutional.
D
Before parting with discussion on this point we may refer to certain
additional submissions placed for our consideration by Mr. Bobde and Mr.
Dave learned counsel for appellants. Placing reliance on Section 6 of the
Adhiniyam read with Section 34 it was submitted by Mr. Bobde that
university had full powers to create posts. When we turn to Section 6 we E
find that sub-section 30 thereof lays down that university has power to
create administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts to make ap-
pointments thereto. There cannot be any dispute on this aspect. Similarly
when we turn to Section 34 we find that the Coordination Committee has
/ power amongst others to consider matters of common interest to all or F
some of the universities. However, we do not read in these provisions the
power to create additional posts of Readers and Professors for being
reserved for promotee Readers and Professors nor is the power exercised
by the university in the present case to create such posts as indeed it could
not in the absence of any statutory provision in the Act permitting it to do
so. A conjoint reading of Section 49 and sub- section 30 of Section 6 would G
only indicate that the university can create additional posts of Readers or
......,. Professors for filling them up by the only statutorily permitted source of
recruitment, namely, by direct recruitment under Section 49. As already
discussed earlier in the absence of similar provision like Section 31(A) of
Uttar Pradesh Act which was considered by this court in the case of Dr. H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Bal Krishna Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) no posts could
have been created for promotees by way of extension of cadre of Readers
or Professors as the case may be. As there is no such statutory provision
in the Act governing first respondent university, Section 6 by itself cannot
be of any assistance to learned counsel for appellants. Mr. Dave invited
our attention to Section 50 which deals with payment of salaries to teachers
B of university. The said provisions is not relevant for deciding the question
whether the merit promotees were ex cadre employees or not. Similarly
Section 64(1) to which our attention was invited by the learned counsel is
also of no avail to the appellants as all that section provides is that wherever '
in accordance with the Act, any person is to hold an office or to be a
c member of any authority by rotation according to seniority such seniority
in the absence of any provisions to the contrary in the Act, shall be
determined in accordance with the statutes. Until the statutes are made
the seniority in a particular cadre shall be determined by the length of
continuous service in such cadre. As we have already discussed earlier the
said statutes would govern seniority of cadre employees only and cannot
D be projected to take in their sweep inter se sr,niority of cadre employee on
the one hand and ex cadre employees like the promottee Readers and
Professors on the other hand. The University cannot make statutes contrary
to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

E Reliance was then placed by the learned counsel for appellants on a
decision of the very same High Court from which the present appeal arise.
The said decision was rendered by the Jabalpur Bench in M.P. No. 2064/89.
The Bench by its order dated 19.7.94 has taken the view that inter se
seniority of directly recruited Readers in Hindi Department of Rani Dur-
F gawati Vishwa Vidyalaya and a promotee Reader under the merit promo-
tion scheme shall be decided on the basis of continuous officiation. It is
difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Court, in view of the fact that
a directly recruited Reader was a cadre employee while merit promotee
Reader was only an ex cadre employee. This vital aspect of the matter has
been totally missed by the Court in that decision. Hence, it has to be held
G that the said decision does not lay down correct legal position. Our
attention was also invited to a decision of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur
\
Bench in D.B Civil Writ petition No. 2558/88 decided by S.N. Bhargava
\.
and P.C. Jain, JJ on 9.12.88. In that case the Division Bench had taken the
view that merit promoted Professors must be given the same time scale as
H directly recruited Professors under the Rajasthan University Teachers and
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY (MAJMUDAR, J.] 617

Officers Special Condition of Service Act, 1974. That has been directed on A
the basis of equal pay for equal work. We are informed that special leave
petition against the said decision was dismissed by this court on 9.12.88 by
a non speaking order. The said. decision is of no avail to the appellants as
we are concerned with the relevant provisions of the Vikram University
Act. The aforesaid decision was rendered in the light of an entirely B
different scheme of statutory provisions governing the controversy between
the parties in that case. But that apart, the Rajasthan High Court was not
concerned with the question with which we are concerned, namely, whether
there cait be inter se seniority of ex cadre employees and cadre employees
even if they are drawing the same salary. We may note at this stage that so
far as the present appeals are concerned it is not in dispute between the C
parties that the promotee Professors and Readers who have actually got
promoted under the 1982 merit promotion scheme are being paid the same
revised time scale even after the implementation of the career advancement
scheme, in view of the decision of Madhya Pradesh Government dated 21st
March, 1989 wherein it has been clearly directed that those teachers who D
have been given promotion under the merit promotion scheme prior to
19.6.87 will be entitled to draw from 1.1.86 or from the date of their actual
promotion (that is between 1.1.86 and 17.6.87) the reversed time scale for
Reader i.e. Rs. 3000- 5700 and for the Professor Rs. 4700 - 7300. In the
present proceeding, we are not concerned with the pay scales of any merit
promotees who might have opted out for being governed by the merit E
promotion scheme even after the implementation of career advancement
scheme and who might have been promoted 0nly after 17.6.87. As we have
seen earlier, for them the pay scales would be lower than the revised pay
scale available to a directly recruited Reader or Professor as the case may
be. It must therefore be held that there would be no jnstification for the F
respondent authorities to treat directly recruited Professors and Readers
at par with merit promotee Readers and Professors for deciding their inter
se seniority which as we have already discussed earlier cannot be coun-
tenanced at all.

It was next submitted that on doctrine of promissory estoppel the G
respondent authorities must treat promotee Readers and Professors at par
with directly recruited Readers and Professors. This contention has to be
stated to be rejected. No promise was held out either by the Commission
or by respondent no. 1 university to these merit promotees that their inter
se seniority with direct recruits in the upper cadres will be reckoned on the H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A principle of continuous officiation nor is there anything to suggest that but
for such a promise a merit promotee would not have accepted his promo-
tion or that he had changed his position in any manner relying on such an
alleged promise. Such a promise if any also would have been unconstitu-
tional being violative of Articles 14(1) and 16 of the Constitution. Dr.
Dhavan submitted that such a promise is culled out from a letter of
B Commission issued in 1984. In that letter the Commission informed all
concerned that the question of inter se seniority of promotees and direct
recruits will be left to be decided by the concerned universities. It is
\
impossible to discern any promise about fixation of inter se seniority from
this letter. For all these reasons, the first point under consideration is
C answered in the negative.

Point No. 2

So far as point is concerned we may note that the High Court by the
D impugned judgment has taken the view in the last para of the judgment
that the respondent university shall delete the names of respondents nos.
4 to 9 in M.P. 1180/89 and respondent no. 4 in M.P. 208/89, from seniority
list. A grave exception was taken by learned counsel for appellants to the
aforesaid direction. It was submitted that once the merit promotion scheme
recommended by the Commission was adopted by the respondent univer-
E sity and once the concerned incumbents were promoted on merit as
Reader or Professor as the case may be they were entitled to work as
Readers or Professors even assuming that they were ex cadre employees.
·Hence it cannot be said that they should not be treated as Readers or
Professors at all and their seniority should be shown only in the lower cadre
F of Reader or Lecturer as the case may be frnm which they were promoted
on merit as Readers or Professors. In this connection they invited our
attention to para 12 of the judgment to the effect that it is clear from the
scheme annexure P/4 that by virtue of promotion under the said scheme,
it is only the designation of the incumbent which is changed but in reality
he remains in the same lower cadre of either Reader or Lecturer as the
G case may be. Consequently respondents 4 to 9 cannot be held to have been .
appointed by the University on clear vacant posts of professors and their
name cannot be included .in the seniority list or professors nor can they be \,

considered senior to the petitioners. According to us no exception can be
taken to the last part of para no. 12, where it is observed that respondents
H 4 to 9 cannot be held to have been appointed on clear vacant posts of
RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAJMUDAR, J.] 619

Professors nor can they be included in the seniority list of Professor nor A
_,,_ can be considered senior to the petitioner. But it must be clarified at this
stage that even though they may not be included in the seniority list of
cadre employees, namely, Professors or Readers it also cannot be held as
assumed by the High Court that their merit promotions were of no legal
effect at all. In this connection, we must keep in view the salient features
of the merit promotion scheme. It cannot be disputed that with a view to
B
avoid stagnation amongst university teachers the Commission recom-
., mended a scheme. of merit promotion. The very preamble of the scheme
shows that it is necessary to give reasonable opportunity for career advan-
cement and recognition of merits and it is on the basis of competitive test
for recognising outstanding work and merit that such merit promotions c
were given. Once a Lecturer is promoted on merit as Reader or a Reader
as Professor even though the promotion may be personal to him he can
certainly continue to work as promotee Reader or Professor till he retires
or otherwise ceases to be an employee of the university or till he is reverted
for some valid reasons. There is no question of such a merit promotee
D
being reverted otherwise to the lower cadre from which he came. He has
_. to work as a Reader or Professor as the case may be and share the work
load with the cadre employees. In fact as there is no vacancy created in
the lower cadre from which he came on account of his promotion, he has
also to share the burden of work load of the lower post. Consequently it
cannot be said that such a merit promotee is not the Reader or Professor E
so far as his work as Reader or Professor is concerned. He cannot claim
to be fitted in the inter se seniority list and may remain outside the cadre
of Reader or Professor as the case may be. However, for all other purposes
like pay, work and status he is a Reader or Professor as the case may be.
F
The question then remains as to how his seniority has to be reckoned
as a merit promotee even though be is an ex cadre Reader or Professor.
The answer is obvious. Amongst person forming the same class to which
he belongs, namely merit promotee Readers or Professors their inter se
seniority has to be fixed on the basis of continuous officiation as such merit
promotees. Such a separate seniority list of merit promotee Readers and G
professors has to be prepared and acted upon for purposes other than
-./ seniority and promotion in, and to the posts available to those in the cadre.
It is not as if they are still to be treated as only Lecturers of Readers as
the case may be from which posts they got merit promotion, as wrongly
assumed by the High Court. In short there have to be two seniority lists, H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A one of the cadre Readers and Professors who are direct recruits and the
other of merit promotee Readers and Professors. The directions issued by
the High· Court in the impugned judgment in paragraph 16 read with the
observations in paragraph 12 will have to stand modified as aforesaid. It is
however, clarified that the direction of the High Court that names of
respondents 4 to 9 in M.P. 1180/89 and respondent no. 4 in M.P. 209/89 in
B the combined seniority list will have to be deleted has to be sustained. The
other directions contained in the later part of paragraphs 16 also have to
be sustained. Point no. 2 is answered in the negative but as indicated herein
above.

C Point No. 3

So far as this point is concerned, it must be noted that even though
the respondent no. 4 in his writ petition before the High Court had prayed
for several reliefs in the prayer clause 53, no such relief was claimed against
respondent no. 1 university. Not only that, even in the judgment under
D appeal no such claim has been considered and no such relief is given to
him. He has also not filed any cross petition in this court claiming such
relief. Hence, no further relief cannot be given to him in the present appeal
moved by the appellants. That apart, there is no factual basis by way of any
material on record for awarding any compensation to him for the alleged
E harassment suffered by him. Point No. 3 is therefore, answered in the
negative.

Point No. 4.

So far as this point is concerned, respondent no. 4 who filed the writ
F petition before the High Court had prayed as per prayer (e) of clause 53
that the order Annexure P/25 revising pay scales of the teachers being
discriminatory, be quashed in the light of the clarification given by the
Commission. But such an argument does not seem to have been pressed
into service by him before the High Court while arguing the writ petition.
At least no discussion is found in the judgment under appeal on this aspect.
G However, respondent no. 4 drew our attention to paragraph 16 of the
judgment which contains a direction that any other ancillary relief such as
appointment as Dean or Head of Department, and their respective pay
scales, are matters of details which the university is directed to work out
and give effect to. It was submitted that this direction world necessarily
H mean that the pay scales available to the appellants should be reduced. It
RASHMI SRIVASTAVAv. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [MAIMUDAR, J.] 621

is not possible to agree with the contention. The said direction is only a A
consequential direction which flows from the reshuffling of the seniority
list which was found fault with by the High Court and it was a logical
corollary of the deletion of the names of respondents 4 to 9 from the
combined seniority list. This ancillary relief has nothing to do with the
setting aside of exhibit P/25. It has to be kept in view that the State of B
Madhya Pradesh by claiificatory order dated 21.3.81 had clearly directed
that those merit promotee Readers and Professors who got promoted
under merit promotion scheme prior to 17.6.87 had to be given pay
protection and would be entitled to draw revised salary of Reader and
professor at par with directly recruited Reader and Professor. That order
of the State of Madhya Pradesh does not appear to have been challenged C
by the party in person before the High Court as there is no discussion on
this aspect in the judgment. Not only that but there is no decision rendered
by the High Court in this connection. The respondent no. 4 had not filed
any cross petition claiming this additional relief from this court. Conse-
quently it is not open to respondent no. 4 to contend in the appeal filed D
by the appellants that a more adverse order be passed against the appel-
lants by depriving them of the enhanced revised time scale made available
to them by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Even otherwise, we do not find
any justification for finding any fault with the directions contained in the
State Govt. Order which tried to protect the pay scales of merit promotees
who had already taken advantage of and who had got benefitted by the E
merit promotion scheme much prior to the coming into operation of the
career advancement scheme. To say the least, it was a discretionary order
which was justified on the facts of the present case. The fourth point is
accordingly answered in the negative.
F
Point No. 5

In view of the aforesaid discussion and our decision on the concerned
points for determination, the result is that these appeals fail and are
dismissed subject to the modification of the impugned order of the High
Court as indicated while answering point no. 2. In the facts and circurnstan- G
ces of the case there will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.