JUDGMENT
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ, petition claims that he was appointed as Asst. Professor on 03.07.1970 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) on 25.09.1987 and at present, he is Head of the Department of English.
2. The respondent University started an exercise by virtue of which it had come out that promotions will be made under Career Advancement Scheme. Two teachers of the English Department, i.e. Dr. Mrs. Sudhi Rajiv and Dr. Anand Singh Jasol were called for interview which were held on 24.09.2001.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that he had acquired an experience of 34 years of teaching. He has discharged the duties as Reader (Associate Professor) for 14 years. None of the persons working in the Department of English, in the respondent University, has that much of experience. The petitioner has also submitted his Ph.D. thesis and claims that Ex. 3 is a certificate issued by his research guide. The petitioner claims, that U.G.C. i.e. University Grants Commission under U.G.C. Act, 1956 exercising powers under Section 26 of the Act has framed Regulations, 2000. These pertain to minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges. Such regulations have been published in the gazette. These regulations are required to be implemented by the Universities. According to the statutory law governing Universities and the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, every University should follow the regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the U.G.C. Act.
4. The petitioner has claimed that in Point 2.5.0 of the Schedule enclosed with Regulations, it is provided that promotion to the post of Professor (Promotion) can be made from the post of Reader when such Reader has completed eight years of service. Point 2.5.0 has been quoted for ready reference in the writ petition and the same is being quoted herein below:
2.5.0 Professor [Promotion]–In addition to the sanctioned position of Professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader.
5. Thus, the petitioner’s claim is that for appointment of Professor (Promotion), the only requirement is that the incumbent should have completed eight years of service. There is no other requirement. The petitioner had already completed 14 years of service and thus, it was incumbent upon the University to call the petitioner, when University was considering the case for promotion.
6. The petitioner claims that the amendment made in Ordinance 317 has been mis-placed. It should not have been against the provisions of Regulations of 2000. Providing for 8 years experience is in consonance with the Regulations of 2000. But when it comes to providing for Ph.D., the respondent University has exceeded its powers. In the amendment, it has further been provided that if the total number of 17 years service has been rendered then, the Teacher will also be considered for promotion, notwithstanding that he has not completed eight years as Reader. According to the petitioner, the amendments made are not in consonance with the recommendations of the Academic Council and such deviation was even objected by the 34 members of the Academic Council, out of 51 members.
7. Another similarly situated teacher had preferred a writ petition before this Court. He has been ordered to be interviewed by the Board. This being the position, the petitioner also approached the University for being considered in the light of the petitioner, in that case. But he has been refused orally, it was stated by the University, that if the petitioner is ordered to be permitted by the court then only, the University will interview the petitioner. The petitioner has said that the manner in which Ordinance 317 has been amended is not proper. The making of Ordinance has to be in accordance with the provisions provided by the Jai Narain Vyas University Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1962’).
8. Section 24 of this Act provides that when Syndicate passes a particular Ordinance, then it has to be submitted to Senate and Senate has to consider the same in its next meeting. The Senate can even declare the resolution to be void and can cancel the ordinance, if the Senate does not cancel it, then the Ordinance has to go for the approval of the Chancellor.
9. The petitioner has relied on Section 24 of the Act of 1962. Section 24 of the Act of 1962 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
24[1] Ordinances shall be made by the Syndicate, but no such Ordinance shall take effect until it has been approved by the Chancellor; Provided that no Ordinance concerning admission to the University, or to its examination, courses of study, schemes of examination, attendance and appointment of examiner shall be considered unless a draft of such Ordinance has been proposed by the Academic Council.
[2] The Syndicate shall not have power to amend any draft proposed by the Academic Council under the provisions of Sub-section (1) but may reject or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration, either in whole or in part, to get with any amendments which the Syndicate may suggest;
Provided that no Ordinance affecting the income or expenditure of the University shall be made, amended, repealed or added to, unless prior to consent in writing of the State Government to the draft of such Ordinance has been obtained.
[3] All Ordinances made by the Syndicate shall be submitted to the Senate, and shall be considered by the Senate at its next meeting. The Senate shall have power, and shall be considered by the Senate at its next meeting. The Senate shall have power, by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members voting, to cancel any ordinance made by the Syndicate and such Ordinance shall from the date of such resolution be void.”
It is claimed by the petitioner that no Ordinance can take effect unless it is approved by the Chancellor, after being approved by the Senate. Thus, the qualifications on which the present selections are being made are void.
10. The petitioner further claims that this amendment pertains to change of condition of service of the petitioner. As and when conditions of service of an employee are changed to its detriment, he is required to be afforded an opportunity. Such conditions are required to be gazetted. Reliance has been placed on a case decided by this Court reported in 1979 ILR 1082 ‘Ugam Raj Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan’.
11. The petitioner further claims that adding of note of the requirement of a candidate being Ph.D. is illegal and is in violation of Regulations, 2000. Therefore, the petitioner has been illegally excluded from being called. He has a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor. The petitioner has further claimed that note appended cannot be applied to those Readers who have completed eight years of experience. The petitioner has further claimed that there is no rationale to differentiate between the post of Reader on the basis of qualification, which is not at all relevant. When person can be appointed as Reader directly on the basis of published work, then denial of promotion on that count is discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the selections are being made by keeping everything in dark. It has not been made known as to how many posts of Professor are there, for which the promotions are to be made. It is said in the letter of the State that the same will be decided, after selection list is made available. Such providence is contrary to law. Further, it is claimed by the petitioner that he is the Head of the Department and such person who are working under him, are being called for interview for the post of Professor. The petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity for being considered as Professor. Thus, the petitioner has claimed that he should have been called for interview and selected, being senior most person in the department. Further, the number of posts were not advertised and eligibility list was not published. A direction should be issued by the University and eligibility list should first be prepared and then, the interview should be held.
13. Respondent University has put in appearance and has contested the claim of the petitioner. The stand of the University is that the writ petition is not maintainable. It has been stated by the University that Point 2.5.0 has no application, as far as the petitioner is concerned. The respondent University has replied as under:
When Regulations made by the U.G.C. are perused it will be apparent that so called point No. 2.5.0 pertains to appointment by promotion. That has nothing to do with appointment by way of Career Advancement. Provision in regard to career Advancement are available in point 2.0.0 and a bare perusal of point 2.1.2 will go to show that for movement into grades of Reader and above, the eligibility criteria would be Ph.D. and not only this it is further said that those without Ph.D. can go up to the level of Lecturer.
14. Thus, the University has tried to say that Regulation 2000 recognise two categories for promotion–one as Professor (Promotion) and Professor (Career Advancement). One is appointment by promotion and another is appointment under Career Advancement Scheme. Two different categories have been visulised in the reply of the respondent University.
15. It has further been claimed by the University than on the one hand, the petitioner states that the regulations made by the UGC are mandatory and University cannot do anything contrary to it, that being so, how can the petitioner challenge the framing of Ordinance 317 which according to the respondents have been framed strictly in accordance with the regulations.
16. Respondent University is emphatic that before any Teacher is considered eligible to be appointed as Professor, one has to have degree of Ph.D. to his credit, as has been provided in Ordinance 317. The petitioner being not a Ph.D., he would lack in the eligibility criteria and therefore, he is not fit for consideration. The claim of the petitioner is based on erstwhile Ordinance 317. In this published work was provided as alternative to Ph.D. Degree. Such degree can never be an equivalent to any published work. Such published work was considered sufficient earlier but this “equivalent published work” was deleted and the minimum eligibility criteria has been added in the amended Ordinance 317 as Ph.D. Thus, without Ph.D., a candidate cannot be considered. As regards the published work, the stand of the University is as under:
It is humbly submitted that actually also equivalent published work cannot be considered to be a substitute for Ph.D. A publication carries name of the person may be result of effort of many, even it may be purchased.”
It has further been submitted that as regards the doctorate degree, stringent provisions have been made to ensure that the research work was the original work of the student and for which the University has placed reliance on various Ordinance i.e. 216E, 216F, 217A and 218. It is claimed by the answering respondent that even for entering the research work for grant of doctoral degree, as per Ordinance 224, the matter has to go before the Research Board of each Faculty consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of Faculty concerned and Heads of the Departments and the majority of the members shall form a quorum and then, after scrutiny by the Research Board, recognition as Research Supervisor is granted and then, after quality of work is considered, Ph.D. is granted.
17. The petitioner’s claim is that published equivalent academic work be considered to be equivalent to Ph.D.
18. The University has contested the prayer of the petitioner that the requirement of Ph.D. is causing hardship and therefore, it should be removed. Such a prayer is preposterous. The petitioner having accepted the changed pay-scales, he cannot on any count say that he has been put to any disadvantage. University emphatically stated that the regulation framed by the UGC are binding upon all Universities and Colleges. Such binding effect has also been recognised by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is claimed by the answering respondent that the writ petition should be dismissed.
19. The petitioner’s claim about Ordinance 317 is sought to be contested by the respondent University on the ground that it is not necessary that the matter was required to go to the Academic Council as per provisions made in Section 24 of the Act and the recommendation of the Academic Council is not necessary for framing of Ordinance 317.
20. A rejoinder to the reply has been filed and it has been made clear by the petitioner that there is no difference between point of promotion as Professor and Career Advancement Scheme. Whatever is contained in Regulations 2000, it only says that Reader with minimum eight years of service is provided in Point 2.2.3 is the only requirement. The interpretation put forward by the respondent University has been contested by the petitioner. The petitioner has further contested that the University has nowhere notified that what would be the mode of promotions. The number of posts sanctioned and eligibility criteria and seniority are missing and thus, the claim of University that the petitioner has mislead the court is wrong.
21. The petitioner has contested the stand of the respondent University that Ph.D. has been prescribed in the Regulations and has submitted that no such qualification has been set as to be the minimum requirement. The only requirement is service upto 8 years. The petitioner has further contested the stand of University regarding purchase of the published work and has stated that:
It is incorrect statement that the publication carries only name of the person and it may be purchased and this type of derogatory remarks by the University for the high academician goes to show that those students who got their Ph.D. by purchasing any person has been given projection about the published work of the high academic persons like Head of Department and Readers with more than 10 years of experience and this type of derogatory remarks deserves to be struck down from the pleadings.
22. It has further been submitted by the petitioner as under:
The ordinance clearly says that it is the experience of teaching and contributing to the knowledge are essential and Ph.D. is not mark of knowledge because it can be prepared by any body but the published work has got its importance and more over experience of teaching is a sine-qua-non for the promotion to the post of Professor but this aspect has been ignored by the replying respondent while giving the reply. The University has not made any declaration whether these interviews are in the career advancement scheme or in the promotion and as such the whole interview process without even advertising the vacancies and even showing how many vacancies are there in the department and without considering all these facts, the action of the University is arbitrary.
23. In rejoinder, the petitioner has claimed that framing of Ordinance by Syndicate is restricted by following restrictions:
(i) That the Draft should be there from the academic council;
(ii) After being passed, it should be submitted to the senate;
(iii) If pertains to the expenditure or income of the University.
24. The petitioner further claims that Syndicate of the University has almost played a fraud upon the resolution of the Academic Council by adding a note of requirement of Ph.D. and thus, in this background, the writ petition should be allowed.
25. Respondent No. 3 has also filed the reply and have contested the stand of the petitioner and has submitted that the Ordinance 317 has been framed in accordance with law.
26. I have considered the rival submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration.
27. During the course of entire exercise of deciding the cases involving the teachers and University, one thing has prominently come to the force. In the yester years, the teachers of University were appointed by selections. A process where academic excellence was the only criteria which was the basis of appointment. With passage of time when it became difficult for the Government to foot the bill of the University, some methods were devised by the State Government. One of them was stopping recruitment in the services of University. During the course of arguments, it was informed by the counsel for the Teacher that there had been no recruitment in the University for a long time. The counsel for the State has filed a written stand of the State in this regard, which reads as under:
I am directed to refer to your letter No. 525, dated 27.9.2002 on the subject cited above and to say that as per conditions of M.O.U. and the Block Grant the University should seek permission of the Government for filling up vacant posts or for any other matter which is likely to create extra financial burden on the Government. Due to its odd financial condition, the Government has restrained from permitting the Universities for filling up vacant posts without rationalisation of staff and assessment or workload as per norms, The Universities could not do this at their level.
As per the decision of the Vice-Chancellors’ Coordination Committee meeting dated 23.3.2002, it was decided that the workload of teaching staff of the Universities shall be assessed by a team headed by the Secretary, Higher Education. In response to that decision, the exercise of workload assessment has now been completed by the Government. The workload of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur has also been assessed and permission to fill up the vacant posts has been sought from the Finance Department. As soon as the permission from the Finance Department is received, the University will be permitted to fill up the vacant posts of teaching staff.
What stands out prominently from the facts narrated hereinabove is that the stagnation in the University teaching faculty is the result of faculty planning. In the recent past the recruitment has not been done because the concerned have failed to evaluate the relevant workload.
28. The exercise contemplated in the stand of the State was initiated way back in the month of March, 2002. While these lines are penned down in the fag-end of December, it is not known whether any such exercise has actually been undertaken or any result has come. Thus, what becomes more than obvious is that usual mode of recruitment in the Universities i.e. by open selection has been subjected to closure and this kind of treatment to the Universities has given rise to the demands for promotion.
29. Earlier, the concept of promotion in the University services was unknown. May be that due to mishandling of arrangements in the Universities, financial stringency has occurred. This has given rise to a demand for promotional avenues. This may also have been the result of artificially created circumstances.
30. The University is the prominent avenue for higher education teachers. The College Education is another facet of it. Those who could not get selection in the University teaching faculty or had a craving for promotional avenue had gone to the College Education Department. Where regular promotional avenues are available.
31. In Universities academic excellence was prevailing. Those teachers who felt that they are to gain higher status in teaching faculty proved their metal at the selections. As required, open selections were held for the higher posts in the University, When State Government failed in their financial management and Universities were not provided adequate assistance, the stagnation in the cadre was one of its consequences. At that point of time, personal promotion and career advancement like features were devised.
32. Such events may satisfy the teachers who have not been provided opportunity for promotion by selection and claim stagnation. Such features cannot be a substitute for maintaining standards of academic environment in the University. the name Professor sounds so big in its implication, that only those who had professed the subject in its every dimension could only achieve it. Now, the same is being made available/claimed for considerations other than the academic excellence.
33. In the State of Rajasthan the question of stagnation was attended by amending Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1974’) by introducing personal promotion scheme. At the time, when this was introduced only one such opportunity was conceived. Obviously to guard old values of University Education, which had not known a class of teachers in the University by promotion.
34. While all this has happened in the State of Rajasthan, the University Grants Commission came with an idea of Career Advancement. The University Grants Commission has powers under Section 26(e) & (g) for prescribing qualifications and academic standards. It never had the right conferred on it to device a method of recruitment. But nonetheless in the name of superiority of powers conferred on it the University Grants Commission introduced idea of Career Advancement Scheme. A mode of appointment by promotion. A power which squarely lay with the Universities or Governments. Such power was usurped by U.G.C. The teachers were craving for higher status. Governing bodies of the Universities were full of the teachers. The concept of Career Advancement got currency. Under the pressure of teachers the State Government and the Central Government also agreed for the demand without caring for the values for which the University stood and the idea of academic excellence was permitted to be diluted.
35. During the process of arguments, Regulation 2000 had been the centre point. The Regulation provided for qualifications for the appointment of teachers in regular cadre and in career advancement scheme. Obviously, University Grants Commission could not have provided for anything else but for the powers conferred on it. By the statute, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the power conferred on U.G.C. was to provide for qualification and measures for standards. No power was vested in the University Grants Commission for providing a mode of appointment.
36. The State Government informed the Universities of its desire to go ahead with the career advance scheme. While writing so, the State Government had not framed any guidelines or rules. In a recruitment or promotion, it is not the qualification alone which is the sole guiding factor. There are other areas which are required to be covered. One of them would be the relationship of promoted teachers with regular cadre. This aspect was subject matter of controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University and Ors. . The Hon’ble Supreme Court then laid down that such promotions can be on ex-cadre post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:
Merit 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 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. 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 inter se seniority of merit promotee Readers and Professors and directly recruited Readers and Professors by treating them as forming one class. 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 distinct source of recruitment by promotion by way of amending the parent Act. As the University 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 Committee of the University for not 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)
Irony of circumstances here is that the Act of 1974 earlier provided for ex-cadre posts, but the same has now been done away with, by a conscious deletion from the Act of 1974. Nothing to substitute that part of the Act has so far been brought on the statute book, by the State Government. Therefore, the career advancement scheme is being sought to be implemented without there being a scheme.
37. The concept of career advancement alone is sought to be given currency. This fact is not unknown to the University Authorities who have sought to implement career advancement scheme. Though, the University has taken an exercise to amend Ordinance 317 under Section 24(1) of the Jai Narain Vyas University Act, 1962 but while submitting reply to the present writ petition they have chosen to take a stand which is in fact contrary to the stand of the University. Nonetheless is a very important deviation. It says that promotional posts are different than the promotions to be made in career advancement scheme. A portion of the reply showing this stand of the University has been quoted in the judgment hereinbefore.
38. The stand of the University is not only depicting a confusing picture but gives an altogether different dimensions to its stand. It comes out that Professor (promotion) as defined in Ordinance 317 is to be governed by provided qualification, as enumerated in Point No. 2.5.0. Consideration for career advancement scheme is different. If the qualifications provided in Regulation 2000 for the Professor (promotion) are not relevant qualifications for the Professor Career Advancement, then the University though has amended Ordinance 317, which has otherwise been held invalid, also cannot be considered to be a guiding factor for providing qualifications for promotions in the career advancement scheme. The entire selections has been made by the University on the basis of the qualifications provided under Ordinance 317. It forms the basis of the entire selection process for all the departments which has been taken for appointment under career advancement scheme. That would, therefore, be invalid for being done in the light of the qualifications, which according to the University itself has not been provided for career advancement scheme.
39. Therefore, the exercise of promotion in the name of career advancement is without jurisdiction. The whole process of the promotion under career advancement scheme as undertaken by the respondent University is on the basis of qualification as provided under Ordinance 317 which does not provide for anything for Professor (Career Advancement). It provides for Professor (Promotion), which according to University is not relevant. In its pleadings, the University has fallen back on Regulation 2000. The whole exercise, is therefore, on wrong premises and therefore, illegal and invalid. Thus, it is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
40. In service jurisprudence what is so far known is that promotions are made basically on two considerations; one is merit, another is seniority cum merit. To Judge these two dimensions of the work of employees, there are certain parameters which have been designed like Annual Appraisal Report and assessment of Superior Officers. As far as University teachers are concerned, such methodology is not available because the concept of promotion was never conceived as regards teachers of University. Thus, the selections sought to be made for promotion will be based on an interview as suggested by the respondents and assessment of academic work etc. The University and petitioner both have given their points of view about the quality of published work. The University submitted that publication of articles etc. can be purchased without actually writing. The stand of the petitioner is that research work of Ph.D. can be got written by somebody else.
41. Thus, one of the parameters i.e. academic work is full of such vagaries that it cannot be recognized as a valid proposition, on the showing of the parties themselves. That leaves behind only interview, which is too uncertain a process that judicial courts have taken a very cautious view in this regard. A reference in this regard may be made to AIR 2000 SCW 4024 (Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.). It has been suggested that only a very limited credence have to be given to it. In the instant case, the most significant part is interview. Thus, there are chances of misusing this facet.
42. The promotions are sought to be made by the University by judging the merit of the candidates, on the basis of an interview and published papers. interview has been adjudicated to be prone to be misused in many cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. The use of published work and Ph.D. is tainted on the showing of the parties, because the possibility of plagiarism, as has been suggested by the parties, in such device. That being the position, it is a hazardous proposition to consider the promotions, on these two parameters only. No other criteria is available to judge the comparative merit of the candidates on record. Thus, placing confidence on such methodology may result into miscarriage of justice.
43. Apart from the aforesaid aspect of method of selection adopted by the University in the present set of circumstances is, limited availability of candidates for selection. The promotion being method of appointment, if is subject to a very limited number of people, without there being valid parameters available, then this will result into discrimination. Infringement of Article 14 is obvious, thus the process does not appear to be safe. There being no guiding factors provided and no parameters defined, only providing for eligibility qualification cannot result into an assessment of candidate properly. The State Government has not considered it prudent to provide for any such methodology which would give such an opportunity to the assessing authorities to judge the comparative merits of the candidates, objectively. Thus, the selections being made without there being defined parameters and methods of assessment, discrimination can be seen. The allegations in the writ petition filed in this regard show, that there is a great possibility of, favourtism being shown to the candidates.
44. In this background, as situations stand presently, a rethinking is required to be done about providing provisions for promotion to the University Teachers. In Government Services, Departmental Promotion Committees sit and take and over-all view of the entire career profile of the person sought to be promoted. Here, nothing like that has been suggested in any Administrative or Legislative guideline. Career profile of University teachers is not maintained progressively. Thus, the present selection being based on unfettered and unguided selection process, which was conceived for direct selection, cannot be considered to be appropriate for promotional avenues. Seniority has always been seen to be a very important consideration for promotion. In the present set of circumstances, that has not only been reglected but there is no room provided for giving any weightage to this aspect of the candidate. The service jurisprudence, as has developed in this country, has seen the selections for promotion, as not an amenable thought. So far known promotional mechanism is different than the one sought to be implemented in the University teachers. There being no inbuilt checks available, this will result into miscarriage of justice. Above all, having not provided for number of posts at the inception, a chance for manipulation has been left open in the whole process of selection.
45. This has also been made clear on behalf of the Teachers during the course of arguments that whatever procedure has been applied for promotion of the teachers in the past in the name of personal promotion and career advancement has not fulfilled the objectives in its entirety. Those teachers who were eligible according to the criteria, prevailing at relevant time, University failed to promote them. This shows that how hazardous and arbitrary are consequences of implementing such devices. There are number of teachers who are part of present set of litigation complaining of discrimination. They were not promoted when they were eligible as alleged.
46. It was neglect and arbitrariness on the part of University that the teachers have raised grievance. As and when they became entitled to be promoted, in view of scheme then prevailing, University has neglected their entitlement for promotion. The Ordinance 317 was promulgated by the University for being implemented in the alleged career advancement. According to the University itself, the post of Professor (Promotion) is not akin to the Professor, Career Advancement. This explanation is misleading, therefore, not justifiable. If qualification is provided for appointment by promotion in point 2.5.0, of Regulation 2000, then saying of the University that this providence has nothing to do with appointment by career advancement, shows that intent and design of the University Administration is, not bona fide. It wants to take advantage of every expression, to do things in a manner, which is based on extraneous considerations. Thus, the amended ordinance, which has already been struck by this Court, can be seen loaded with such possibilities. The stand in University submissions show that it could not only be misused in theory but has been done in practice also. Thus, any selection based on such providence cannot have the semblance of credibility.
47. It is seen that there being no formulation of formal guidelines and rules for making career advancement, the whole process is without application of mind. In this background, unless a considered scheme is evolved, it would not be safe to try adventurism.
48. Initiated only on a letter of the State Government without there being complete rules provided, such a process cannot be sanctified by a judgment of the Court, recognizing its various ingredients. Thus, it is felt that State Government may consider the following points before any further action is taken in this regard:
(i) The State Government may consider to restore the process of direct selection immediately so as to provide desirous candidates an opportunity to prove their merit and not feel cheated that their academic excellence is not getting due recognition.
(ii) What are the factors which have crept into the process of promotion that has forced the teachers to adopt such a stance, where they have lost the sense of decency and have even not spared judicial institution where they have tried to exercise their influence. A reference to this has been made during one of the hearings in Court.
(iii) The State Government may also examine, the certain teachers feel that as and when they had an opportunity of being considered for promotion, in the light of the practices and provisions of yester years, they were discriminated. Such aspects may be investigated and grievance may be attended to.
49. These are the points which are required to be looked into by the State Government and then if needed, a suitable legislative policy be devised. In the present, selections are seen to be hit by Article 14 being discriminatory and also result of non-application of mind. Hence, fails in judicial review. Thus, the entire process of selection in career advancement deserves to be set aside and consequently the same is set aside. The relief claimed by the petitioner cannot therefore be granted as the whole process is seen to be incapable of standing the judicial scrutiny.
50. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
