JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J. :—These two civil appeals arise out of a common 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 appeals.

2. 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 officiation in service as Readers or Professors. The High Court has taken the view that they 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.

Factual backdrop :

3. 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.

I. Civil Appeal No. 6001/94 :

4. This appeals 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 merit promotion scheme was formulated by the 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 University and who merit academic recognition. Such teachers were to be given promotion on merits and not on the basis of seniority.

5. Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 29 June, 1985. Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the writ petitioner before the High Court in M.P. No 208/89 was appointed as Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recruit. He was so appointed on 13th March, 1986. He was confirmed after a period of two years probation. The respondent No. 1 University published seniority lists in the years November, 1986: November, 1987 and latest list in November 1988 whereunder the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 4. The appellant was placed at serial No.14 while respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 33. That was presumably because the appellants worked as a promotee Readers from 29-6-1985 while respondent No. 4 became Reader by direct recruitment later on 13th March, 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 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 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 :

6. The respondent No. 4 in this appeal was the original writ petitioner before the High Court. He was appointed as Professor in Physics Department 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 a