The central legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners, having passed the NET exam and received exemption from the University, were entitled to Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits and other consequential benefits from their initial appointments, not just from the date of acquiring the essential qualification.

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard finally.

2. The brief facts leading for filing the present Petition, disclosed in the memo of Petition, are as under:

(a) By the instant petition the petitioners are seeking directions against the respondent no. 1 to 4 herein to grant the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioners by considering the petitioners' earlier services.

(b) In the year 1995, by following due process of law, the petitioners have been appointed as lecturers in their respective subjects. The petitioners have been appointed by duly selection committee and the said appointments have been approved by the respondent no.4 University. At the time of appointment of the petitioners, the NET/SET qualification was not essential and the same was made compulsory w.e.f. 04.04.2000. That apart, at the relevant time, the candidates of having NET/SET qualification were not available. Therefore, the candidates who were having the requisite qualification except NET/SET were appointed.

(c) In the year 1999-2000, after appointment, the petitioner no.1 passed NET exam in December, 1999 whereas the petitioner no.2 passed NET exam in June, 2000. Thus both the petitioners have acquired the requisite qualification. In the year 2004, on account of non availability of the NET/SET candidates, the candidates having requisite qualification except NET/SET were appointed as lecturers. Even after appointment also the said candidates did not pass the NET/SET exam and therefore they were not getting benefits of CAS and other consequential benefits. Considering all these aspects, the UGC took a policy decision to grant exemption from NET/SET examination to the lecturers appointed in between 19.09.1991 to 03.04.2000. Accordingly the proposals were called in the year 2004 and thereafter exemptions have been granted to the said lecturers. In the year 2004, the petitioners were possessing the requisite qualification of NET and therefore, there was no necessity to forward the petitioners proposal for exemption and therefore the petitioners proposals were not forwarded. Considering the qualification acquired by the petitioners i.e. NET, the university has granted exemption to the petitioners.

(d) Though the exemption was granted to the candidates from passing NET/SET examination still they were not getting the consequential benefits such as CAS benefits senior pay scale etc., therefore, some of the lecturers have approached this Court by filing various Writ Petitions. After hearing both the parties, this Court allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the said lecturers are entitled to get all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointments in view of grant of exemption. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are on better footing than the abovementioned lecturers, as the petitioners have passed the NET exam and exemption has been also granted by the University. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get the consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointments. However, the respondent no.1 to 4 herein are granting the consequential benefits to the petitioners from the date of acquisition of NET qualification and not from the date of their initial appointments. So far as the other lecturers are concerned, they are getting the consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointments, though they are not possessing the NET/SET qualification. However, though the petitioners are possessing the NET qualification and though they are on better footing still the CAS benefits and other consequential benefits are not being paid to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments. Thus it is crystal clear that though the petitioners are on better footing still they are being deprived from their statutory benefits.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the re