These petitions have been filed challenging the legality of the appointment order dated 27.8.2014, whereby Dr. S. Venkataraghava has been promoted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine. Since both these writ petitions challenge the same order, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts are being taken from the Writ Petition No.45474/2014.

It is the case of the petitioner, Dr. K. V. Satish, that on 11.8.2000 he was appointed as Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in the Bangalore Medical College. Subsequently, by order dated 28.11.2005, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the said college. Thereafter, by an order dated 25.5.2009, he was also promoted as Associate Professor in the said college. Subsequently, a vacancy arose in the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine. Against the said vacancy, three of the Associate Professors were eligible, namely, Dr.Bheemappa Havanoor, Dr.K.V.Satish (petitioner) and Dr.S.Venkataraghava (Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.45474/2014 and Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.48921/2014). The Review Committee considered their academic performance and their seniority; on 12.8.2014, it recommended Dr.S.Venkataraghava to be promoted to the post of Professor in Forensic, Medicine. By order dated 27.8.2014, Dr.S.Venkataraghava was duly promoted to the said post. Hence, these petitions before this Court.

3. Mr. D.R.Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.45474/2014, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the Byelaws of Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute clearly lay down the procedure for promotion to the post of Professor. According to Byelaw 13 of the ByeLaws, the method of recruitment has been prescribed either through promotion, or by direct recruitment, or by deputation. While Byelaw 15 of the ByeLaws lays down the method for selection, that is, direct recruitment, Byelaw 16 of the ByeLaws deals with promotion to a higher post. According to Byelaw 16 of the ByeLaws, the basis for promotion shall be senioritycummerit from among the qualifying members of the teaching staff.

Secondly, that the C & R Rules for the teaching cadre for the Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute further prescribe the minimum eligibility criteria which needs to be fulfilled by the candidates who seek a promotion to the post of Professor. According to the said criteria, it is mandatory to have a minimum of four research publications Index/Medicus/National Journal and research publication in International Journal. According to the learned counsel, once the said minimum eligibility criteria has been met by the candidates, then the Review Committee can only consider their seniority. It cannot examine the inter se merit of the candidates. For, the basis of promotion is senioritycummerit. If the Review Committee were to consider the inter se merit of the candidate, it would not only violate the principle of senioritycummerit, but would also convert the basis into one under meritcumseniority. In order to buttress this plea, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and others v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others [(2010) 1 SCC 335].

Thirdly, that while considering the candidacy of the three Associate Professors, the Review Committee has gone beyond its jurisdiction. It has not only considered the fact that all the three candidates do have minimum eligibility qualifications, but has also assessed their inter se merit by awarding them certain points, to each one of them, for different aspects of their merit. However, Byelaw 16 of the Byelaws do not warrant the awarding of the points. Therefore, the criterion used by the Review Committee is de hors the Byelaw 16 of the Byelaws. Thus, the recommendation made by the Review Committee is without any legal basis. Therefore, the entire selection process stands vitiated. Hence, the appointment of Dr.S.Venkataraghava deserves to b