R.Bener Raj and ot hers v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

IMPLEMENT AT ION: 1. Teachers in the Agricultural advanced Universities teaching and researching and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition, may be considered for merit promotion in the first instance, after completing eight years of continuous service in their respective cadre, (sic, ten years) of which at least four years (sic, should institution/department where he/she being considered for such merit promotion through assessment. 2 . ……… 3. ……… 4 .(a) While the final selection of persons to be promoted can be made by the University in accordance with its normal procedure, it would be necessary to refer research their work publications, books review, curriculum development, teaching aids developed, innovation teaching methods and equipment developed etc.) presented by least three individual teachers to at subject/discipline referees concerned. T he to be selected out of a panel of the names set up according to the procedure presented by the University for selection committee. (b) T he evaluation reports of these referees are include (which experts experts through promotion in case of promotion referees should be kept confidential and should be made available to the selection committee. (c) T he merit promotion be given to a teacher only on recommendation of the selection committee constituted after it has given due consideration opinion of the referees. ( d ) T here should be at least two selection outside committee associate professor/ reader and three outside professors. (e) T he post of an associate professor/reader be given to an Assistant Professor/Lecturer or the position of a to an associate Professor be given professor/reader, promotion, would be personal to the concerned incumbent. (f) T he main criteria for promotion under this scheme would be the merit of work as defined above and not seniority of the teachers. 5. Not more than 33% of the number of total permanent position of assistant professor/lecturers associate professors/Readers within a department may hold such merit promotions to next higher level at any given time. T he persons holding such merit promotions would not count for determining the total associate professors/readers for purposes of merit promotion to professors. It would be desirable for a faculty/ Department not to fully utilize the merit promotion scheme at one time, but to phase it out so that the full quota could be reached in the plan period. 6. Additional funds required to implement this scheme in the Agricultural Universities may be provided by Council as plan assistance on condition Council assistance ceases, the University/State Government would treat this as committed expenditure. 7. ……… 8. ……… 9. ……… 10. Any scheme which the University may already have for merit personal promotion and persons already promoted under such a scheme prior to the present scheme of the Council becoming effective will not qualify for I.C.A.R. assistance. 11. ………” Pursuant t o t he aforest at ed guidelines communicat ed t o it , t he Universit y issued Regulat ions under proceedings dat ed 18.10.1984 t it led ‘t he Andhra Pradesh Agricult ural Universit y Teachers (Merit Promot ions) Regulat ions, 1984. These Regulat ions were ost ensibly made in exercise of t he powers conferred by Sect ion 40(1) of t he Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricult ural Universit y Act , 1963 (for brevit y, ‘t he Act of 1963’). Though t he Regulat ions st at e t o t he effect t hat t he prior approval of t he Government was obt ained, t he same was disput ed by t he Government of Andhra Pradesh before t he Supreme Court . Be t hat as it may. Under t hese Regulat ions, t he Universit y came up wit h a different procedure of awarding marks for select ion of candidat es for merit promot ion. For promot ion of Associat e Professors as Professors, t he marks were t o be awarded under t he following heads: Qualificat ions - 20 marks Service - 30 marks Publicat ions - 20 marks Performance - 30 marks ------ Tot al - 100 marks ------ In so far as qualificat ions are concerned, marks were t o be allot t ed on t he following paramet ers: 1) Bachelor’s Degree – I Class Marks - 5 II Class - 3 Marks III Class - 1 Mark 2) Mast er’s Degree – I Class Marks - 10 II Class - 6 Marks 3) Ph.D. Degree Marks - 5 Under Regulat ion 4, t he Universit y prescribed as under: “4 . While a teacher for promotion to the next higher post under Merit Promotion scheme must possess educational and other qualifications prescribed for higher post from time to time, an Assoc. Professor who does not have Ph.D. Degree and is not less than 54 years of age as on first-July of that year and who has to his credit outstanding research publications which merit consideration of his promotion to the next higher post may also be considered. However, this concession to the cadre of Assoc. Professors shall cease at the end of September, 1987.” As regards t he service component , t he Universit y Regulat ions prescribed t hat 1 mark would be awarded for each year of service. It is t he case of t he Universit y t hat it request ed t he Government ’s approval under it s let t er dat ed 09.09.1983 for implement ing t he merit promot ion scheme. The Government of Andhra Pradesh approved t he scheme for t he academic years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 under separat e individual orders. However, as an object ion was raised by t he Audit Depart ment as t o t he absence of sanct ion under Sect ion 35(B) of t he Act of 1963, which mandat ed t he prior writ t en approval of t he Government , t he Government issued G.O.Ms.No.628, Food and Agricult ure (Agri.III) Depart ment , dat ed

28.09.1990, whereby it accorded sanct ion under Sect ion 35(B) of t he Act of 1963 for implement ing t he scheme t o t he t eachers belonging t o t he cadres of Assist ant Professors and Associat e Professors subject t o t he condit ions st ipulat ed t herein. One such condit ion was t hat t he implement at ion of t he scheme should be st rict ly in accordance wit h t he UGC pat t ern as modified by t he ICAR and anot her was t o t he effect t hat t he scheme should cease t o operat e aft er 17.06.1987. Merit promot ions under t he scheme were accordingly st opped aft er 13.06.1987. While so, it appears t hat t he Government of Andhra Pradesh, having not iced several irregularit ies commit t ed t he Universit y implement ing t he merit promot ion scheme, addressed let t er dat ed 19.09.1995 t o t he Regist rar of t he Universit y point ing out some of t he irregularit ies and direct ing t he Universit y t o t ake act ion as indicat ed t herein. In t he meanwhile, 31 merit promot ion aspirant s approached t his Court by way of W.P.No.2177 of 1995 assailing t he inact ion of t he Universit y in finalizing t heir merit promot ions. The said writ pet it ion was disposed of by order dat ed 13.03.1995 direct ing t he Government of Andhra Pradesh t o consider t he mat t er and necessary direct ions t o t he Universit y wit hin a t imeframe; t hereupon t he Universit y was direct ed t o conduct int erviews for evaluat ing t he performance of t he pet it ioners wit h regard t o t heir ent it lement under t he scheme and finalise t heir select ions. This order was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of t his Court by order dat ed 27.07.1995 in W.A.No.771 of 1995 on t he basis of t he recommendat ions of a House Commit t ee const it ut ed by t he Government , t hat t he merit promot ion scheme should be cont inued. Aggrieved t hereby, t he Government of Andhra Pradesh approached t he Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.7707 of

1997. The said appeal was disposed of by t he Supreme Court by order dat ed 13.11.1997, which st at ed as under: It to uphold “We are unable direction given by the High Court to the appellant to issue orders in conformity with the report of the House Committee. Since the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations of the House Committee, the High Court could not issue a writ or direction in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 2 2 6 of the Constitution directing the appellant to pass an order giving effect recommendations House the State is open Committee. Government either to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the House Committee. But, at the same time, we are of the view that the respondents can make a representation the State Government on the basis of the resolution dated November 2 0, 1993 passed by the University and point out that the Merit Promotion Scheme is still in operation and has not ceased to be in operation in 1987. If such a representation is made by the the competent authority respondents, same and pass shall consider appropriate representation keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Dr.Rashmi Srivastava (supra) as well as the laws governing the University. Such order shall be passed within a period of three months of the submission of the representation. T he appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” Pursuant t o t he above direct ion t he Government of Andhra Pradesh, act ing upon various represent at ions submit t ed t o it , passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.82, Agricult ure and Co-operat ion (Agri.III) Depart ment , dat ed 05.05.1998, ext ending t he merit promot ion scheme as per t he guidelines prescribed by t he ICAR. Reference was made t o t he observat ions of t he Supreme Court t hat t he merit promot ions should be regulat ed as per t he law laid down by in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA V/s. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY [1] . The Government accordingly direct ed t he Regist rar of t he Universit y t o pass appropriat e orders while grant ing merit promot ions st rict ly as per t he above decided case law. Thereaft er, under G.O.Rt .No.589, Educat ion (UEI-1) Depart ment , dat ed 05.05.1998, t he cut -off dat e for effect ing merit promot ions under t he scheme which was fixed as

31.12.1993 vide G.O.Ms.No.242 dat ed 01.08.1994 was ext ended upt o 31.12.1995. The Universit y accordingly issued Memo dat ed

19.06.1998 indicat ing t he names of Associat e Professors who were t ent at ively considered eligible for merit promot ions bet ween 1987 and 1995. Pert inent t o not e, t he appellant s and most of t he ot hers who were t he proposed beneficiaries of t his ext ended scheme had ret ired from act ive service by t hen. The appellant in W.A.No.10 of 2003 found ment ion at Sl.No.1 under t he discipline of Plant Pat hology; t he appellant W.A.No.559 of 2003 found place at Sl.No.2 in t he Soil Science and Agricult ural Chemist ry Group; t he surviving appellant in W.A.No.1141 of 2003 was named at Sl.No.6 under t he capt ion ‘Ext ension Educat ion’; t he appellant in W.A.No.2150 of 2003 found ment ion at Sl.No.9 in t he discipline pert aining t o Soil Science and Agricult ural Chemist ry Group; and t he appellant s in W.A.No.515 of 2004 belonging t o t he same discipline were named at Sl.Nos.4, 5 and 8. The candidat ure of t he appellant s in W.A.Nos.10, 559 and 1141 of 2003 was however not considered at all on t he ground t hat t hey did not possess t he prescribed qualificat ion of Ph.D. The appellant s in W.A.Nos.2150 of 2003 and 515 of 2004 were considered but t heir candidat ure was reject ed and ot hers were preferred. This being t he cause for grievance, t he writ pet it ions came t o be filed before t his Court . Perusal of t he common order dat ed 11.07.2002 passed by t he learned Judge in t he bat ch of cases reflect s t hat t hree issues were considered t herein. The first issue was wit h regard t o t he reference of t he candidat es’ research work t o t hree referees for evaluat ion. The second was wit h regard t o only candidat es borne out on t he cadre being considered for merit promot ion and t he t hird was in connect ion wit h t he candidat ure of duly appoint ed Professors t hrough regular recruit ment being considered once again for merit promot ion t hereby expanding t he zone of considerat ion t o t he det riment of ot hers as yet aspiring for t he post . Wit h regard t o t he first issue, t he learned Judge was of t he opinion t hat t he failure on t he part of t he Universit y in get t ing t he research work assessed t hrough t hree referees as posit ed under t he Regulat ions could not be said t o be fat al as ult imat ely, it was t he select ion commit t ee which had t o finalise t he select ion. On fact s, t he learned Judge however accept ed t he Universit y’s st and t hat all t he candidat es’ research work had, in fact , been submit t ed t o t hree referees for assessment as required. Apropos t he second aspect , t he learned Judge was of t he opinion t hat t he Regulat ions had been amended under t he subsequent proceedings dat ed 30.09.1985,

14.11.1985 and 08.12.1985 whereby t he word ‘cadre’ was subst it ut ed wit h t he word ‘cat egory’. Basing on t his premise, t he learned Judge concluded t hat t hose not borne out on t he cadre, being merit promot ee Associat e Professors, also became eligible for considerat ion under t he scheme. As regards t he t hird issue, t he learned Judge was of t he opinion t hat t he Regulat ions did not place any rest rict ion considering already appoint ed/promot ed t eacher t hrough regular recruit ment for merit promot ion. Furt her, t he learned Judge, t aking not e of t he long lapse of years owing t o t he lit igat ion whereby most of t he t eachers had moved on in t heir careers, was of t he opinion t hat denying t heir candidat ure for merit promot ion under t he scheme would amount t o punishing t he merit orious. The learned Judge t herefore opined t hat t he Universit y had not violat ed t he norms in effect ing promot ions and accordingly dismissed t he bat ch of cases. In t he separat e order dat ed 10.07.2002 passed in W.P.No.10044 of 2000, t he learned Judge repelled t he plea of t he pet it ioner t herein t hat he was eligible t o be considered not wit hst anding t he fact t hat he did not hold a Ph.D. Degree, relying upon Regulat ion 4 of t he Universit y Regulat ions. Furt her, as t he said qualificat ion was necessary for direct recruit ment t o t he post of Professor, t he learned Judge was of t he opinion t hat reject ion of t he pet it ioner’s case by t he Universit y was not illegal and accordingly dismissed t he said writ pet it ion. W.P.No.11555 of 1999 was dismissed by t he learned Judge on 10.07.2002 following t he Judgment rendered in W.P.No.10044 of 2000, negat ing t he cont ent ion of t he pet it ioner t herein t hat t he qualificat ion of Ph.D. prescribed under t he Universit y Regulat ions was cont rary t o t he Act of 1963 and also G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed

05.05.1998. Pert inent t o not e, t hough t he appellant in W.A.No.10 of 2003 had also specifically raised t he issue t hat t he qualificat ion of Ph.D. insist ed upon by t he Universit y was opposed t o t he ICAR guidelines for implement ing t he merit promot ion scheme, t he common order dat ed 11.07.2002 rendered in t he bat ch of cases including t he writ pet it ion filed by t he appellant in W.A.No.10 of 2003 did not address t his aspect . His furt her cont ent ion t hat he had been complet ely overlooked and was not even invit ed for t he int erview also did not figure for considerat ion by t he learned Judge. It may well be t hat t he learned Judge assumed t hat t he pleadings in all t he cases were similar and in t his process t he individual case of t he appellant in W.A.No.10 of 2003 was overlooked. The prejudice caused t o him by his case being clubbed wit h t he ot her cases and not being individually considered on it s own merit s is however manifest . It is pert inent t o not e t hat t he appellant in W.A.No.559 of 2003 had earlier filed W.P.No.23505 of 1998 before t his Court wherein he challenged t he Universit y Regulat ions of 1984, amongst ot her proceedings. The said writ pet it ion was disposed of by a learned Judge of t his Court by order dat ed 02.04.1999 direct ing t he Universit y t o consider his represent at ion wit hin a t imeframe. Alleging disobedience t o t his order, he filed Cont empt Case No.226 of 2000. During t he pendency t hereof, he was furnished a copy of t he Memo dat ed 22.09.1999, whereby t he Universit y informed him t hat he did not fulfill t he qualificat ions for t he post of Professor as he did not possess a Ph.D. Degree and accordingly, his case was not considered for merit promot ion even aft er 1987. The cont empt case was t hereupon closed by order dat ed 15.03.2000 leaving it open t o him t o assail t he validit y of t he Memo dat ed

22.09.1999. Though t he first inst ance, W.P.No.10044 of 2000 a challenge was laid by him only t o t he proceedings dat ed 15.03.2000 whereby t he Universit y grant ed merit promot ions t o respondent s 3 t o 10 t herein, t he prayer was amended t hereaft er as per Court order dat ed 19.06.2000 and a challenge was also laid against t he Memo dat ed 22.09.1999. The learned Judge, while dismissing W.P.No.10044 of 2000, held against t he pet it ioner t herein on t he ground t hat he had failed t o challenge t he Universit y Regulat ions and more specifically Regulat ion 4, which had been pressed int o service for reject ing his candidat ure. The appellant in W.A.No.1141 of 2003 had however challenged t he Universit y Regulat ions of 1984 in his writ pet it ion, W.P.No.11555 of 1999, on t he ground t hat t he same were in violat ion of t he Act of 1963 and G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed 05.05.1998. While dismissing W.P.No.11555 of 1999, t he learned Judge opined t hat it was not demonst rat ed as t o how t he qualificat ions prescribed were cont rary t o law and held t hat t he relief claimed t ouching t he validit y of t he Regulat ions could not be grant ed. Cont ent ious argument s were advanced before us by eit her side as t o t he st at ut ory validit y of t hese Regulat ions. We find subst ant ial force in t he argument s advanced by t he learned counsel for t he appellant s t hat t hese Regulat ions, apart from t he fact t hat t hey seemed t o lack prior writ t en approval of t he Government required under Sect ion 35(B) of t he Act of 1963 as claimed by t he Government it self before t he Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7707 of 1997, do not seem t o be in keeping wit h t he st at ut ory scheme and procedure prescribed in t he Act of 1963. We are however not inclined t o go int o t his issue as any finding upon t he st at ut ory validit y of t hese Regulat ions at t his lat e point of t ime is apt t o open up a Pandora’s box by upset t ing t he merit promot ions effect ed t hereunder long ago. This Court would be disinclined t o unset t le such set t led mat t ers. All t he more so, when it would adversely affect persons who are not even part ies before it . We are of t he opinion t hat t he mat t er is amenable t o disposal on a simpler ground. Pert inent t o not e, t he validit y of t he Universit y Regulat ions is challenged in W.P.No.11555 of 1999, from which W.A.No.1141 of 2003 arises, on t he ground t hat t he same are cont rary t o G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed 05.05.1998. Thus, apart from t heir st at ut ory validit y, t he Regulat ions can be t est ed on t his ground. The fact s narrat ed supra put it beyond doubt t hat t he Supreme Court and t hereaft er, t he Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed 05.05.1998 spelt it out in clear t erms t hat t he Universit y was bound t o follow t he guidelines st ipulat ed by t he ICAR and t he laid down in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA while effect ing merit promot ions. Pert inent t o not e, t he ICAR guidelines explicit ly st ipulat ed t hat any scheme which t he Universit y may have for merit /personal promot ion would not qualify for ICAR assist ance, making it clear t hat t he Universit y had no discret ion t o int erpolat e it s own ideas and requirement s in t he ICAR’s scheme. Furt her, t he met hod of implement at ion of t he scheme was also specified in great det ail. The only leeway and discret ion allowed t o t he Universit y under Clause 4(a) of t he ICAR guidelines was t hat t he final select ion of persons t o be promot ed could be made by t he Universit y in accordance wit h it s normal procedure. It was however made clear t hat it would be necessary for t he Universit y t o refer t heir work t o at least t hree referees in t he subject /discipline concerned and t he referees were t o be select ed as per t he procedure followed by t he Universit y for select ion commit t ees. The discret ion given t o it t o follow t he normal ‘procedure’ for making select ions was misconst rued by t he Universit y as empowering it t o int roduce it it s own qualificat ions and norms for making merit promot ions. It is in t he course of t his exercise t hat t he Universit y prescribed t he qualificat ion of a Ph.D. as an essent ial requisit e under Regulat ion 4 of t he Universit y Regulat ions of 1984. The insist ence on t his qualificat ion is however not borne out by t he ICAR guidelines which make it clear under Clause 4(f) t hat t he main crit eria for promot ion under t he scheme would be t he merit of work as defined and not t he seniorit y of t he t eachers. ‘Work’ is defined under Clause 4(a) of t he guidelines t o include research publicat ions, book reviews, curriculum development , t eaching developed, innovat ion t eaching met hods and equipment development et c. It is manifest t hat t he qualificat ion of t he t eacher was not one of t he crit eria prescribed for at t aining eligibilit y t o be considered for merit promot ion. By it s very nomenclat ure and viewed in t he backdrop of t he object ives of t he ICAR guidelines, it is clear t hat t he scheme was t o recognize out st anding work done by t he Universit y t eachers in t he field of t eaching and research in Agricult ure and allied sciences by way of a ‘crit ical assessment ’. Such merit promot ion was t o be t reat ed as purely personal t o t he incumbent and did not render him/her a member of t he regular cadre t o which he/she was grant ed merit promot ion. Therefore, t he qualificat ions prescribed for recruit ment t o t he regular cadre post of Professor had no relevance in t he cont ext of merit promot ion as a Professor. The Universit y however misunderst ood t he very t hrust of t he scheme and rendered it mundane and commonplace by int roducing it s own Regulat ions cont rary t o t he ICAR guidelines by bringing in t he aspect of qualificat ions and service. The allocat ion of marks for lengt h of service clearly runs cont ra t o Clause 4(f) of t he ICAR guidelines which posit s t hat t he merit of t he t eacher’s work is t he main crit eria and not t he seniorit y, which would be gat hered by lengt h of service. It is t hus est ablished t hat t he Universit y Regulat ions of 1984 were at variance wit h t he ICAR guidelines and consequent ly, G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed 05.05.1998. The prescript ion of Ph.D. qualificat ion as a pre-requisit e for considerat ion under t he merit promot ion scheme is t herefore held t o be invalid. As st at ed s u p r a , t he Government of Andhra Pradesh, while permit t ing ext ension of t he scheme under G.O.Ms.No.82 dat ed 05.05.1998, put it beyond doubt t hat t he Universit y, while ordering merit promot ions, had t o do so st rict ly as per t he law laid down in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA. The count ers filed by t he Universit y in t he various writ pet it ions however demonst rat e t hat it did not follow t he law laid down in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA . The specific issue which figured for considerat ion before t he Supreme Court in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA was whet her Universit y t eachers who were given merit promot ions as Readers or Professors could claim seniorit y over direct ly recruit ed Readers and Professors on t he ground of cont inuous officiat ion in service as Readers or Professors. The Supreme Court upon considering t he mat t er at lengt h concluded as under: “4 2 . T he aforesaid distinguishing features clearly that merit indicate promotee Professors and Readers form a distinct supernumerary appointees as compared to cadre employees, namely, directly recruited Readers and Professors. T hey 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 hold. T hey 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. T he 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 source treating recruitment would be no occasion to fix inter se seniority of merit promotee Readers and Professors and directly recruited Readers and Professors by them as forming one class. Any decision rendered the University concerned not discriminate between them in the matter of inter se seniority would be invalid in the absence of any statutory creation of a distinct promotion by way of amending the parent Act. As the first respondent is governed by the Act which does not contemplate any statutory source of recruitment by way of promotion, whatever sentiments might have been expressed by the Executive for not Committee of distinguishing 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 seen above. ………” the University It is t herefore clear t hat merit promot ees would remain out side t he regular cadre and cannot be t reat ed as members of t he cadre for t he purpose of promot ion or seniorit y. The ICAR guidelines also made it explicit t hat t eachers aspiring for merit promot ions under t he scheme had t o complet e t en years of cont inuous service in t heir respect ive ‘cadres’ and t he merit promot ion accorded shall be personal t o t hem. The same found ment ion in t he Universit y Regulat ions of 1984 also. That being so, t he Universit y could not have considered t he cases of merit promot ee Associat e Professors for grant ing t hem furt her merit promot ion t o t he post of Professors. Being merit promot ees in t he post s of Associat e Professors, t hese t eachers occupied ex cadre post s which were purely personal t o t hem and could not have been grant ed furt her merit promot ion t reat ing t hem on par wit h regularly appoint ed/promot ed Associat e Professors occupying cadre post s. The learned Judge was t herefore not correct in opining t hat t he Universit y Regulat ions st ood amended under proceedings dat ed 30.09.1985, 14.11.1985 and

08.12.1985 whereby t he word ‘cadre’ st ood subst it ut ed t he word ‘cat egory’, rendering eligible merit promot ees furt her merit promot ion. Such amendment , even if validit y effect ed, would fall foul of t he ICAR guidelines as well as t he law laid down in DR.RASHMI SRIVASTAVA, bot h of which were binding upon t he Universit y. The merit promot ions t o t he post s of Professors grant ed t o such of t he respondent s in t hese writ appeals who were merit promot ees in t he post s of Associat e Professors are accordingly set aside. As t he candidat ure of t he appellant s in W.A.Nos.10, 559 and 1141 of 2003 was not considered by t he Universit y due t o t he erroneous insist ence on Ph.D. qualificat ion, t here shall be a direct ion t o t he Universit y t o refer t heir work for assessment t o t hree referees as prescribed by t he ICAR guidelines and t hereaft er, subject t heir candidat ure for assessment by a duly const it ut ed Select ion Commit t ee for merit promot ion t o t he result ant vacancies in t heir disciplines. In so far as t he appellant s in W.A.Nos.2150 of 2003 and 515 of 2004 are concerned, as t heir cases were already considered and reject ed, t he Universit y shall reconsider t he same in t he light of t he set t ing aside of t he merit promot ions grant ed t o ineligible merit promot ee Associat e Professors in t heir disciplines. This ent ire exercise shall be complet ed expedit iously and in any event not lat er t han four (4) mont hs from t he dat e of receipt of a copy of t his Judgment . The Writ Appeals are accordingly allowed t o t he ext ent indicat ed above but in t he circumst ances, wit hout any order as t o cost s. ------------------------------------- GHUL AM MOHAMMED, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 25T H NOVEMBER, 2011. P GS No te: Issue CC in o ne week. B/O KK [1] AIR 1995 SC 1694