( 1 ) THE short question in this petition is again of a controversy age old between the Management and the Employees. The question which could have been resolved at the Management level by the respondents is kept alive for a spell of more than a decade. Apart from sympathy to the petitioners what is accorded to them is apathy. The persons who are rejected and dejected from getting the in benefit of a special scheme of personal promotion adopted by the respondent-Institute have knocked the doors of justice by filing this petition under Article 226 of the constitution.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of the petition and challenge against it it would be necessary to have a conspectus of the material facts at the out-set.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 1-Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA for short ). It appears from the facts of the present case that in order to work out the effective and better policy of promotions pay scale and other service benefits by the IIMA there were several demands from the staff association of the IIMA. Pursuant to the said demands of the staff of the IIMA there came to be constituted the Staff Evaluation Committee (SEC for short) which had to go into the questions of promotion pay allowances and other service benefits which were inter alia demanded by the staff association.

( 4 ) IT appears that the said Committee (SEC) having gone into all these aspects and having heard the persons concerned had submitted a report to respondent No. 1-Institute on 14-9- 1978 and respondent No. 1-Institute having considered the report containing the recommendations of the SEC had been pleased to accept the report. The relevant extracts of the said report are produced in this petition. On acceptance of the said report what is agitated in this petition is the refusal of one of the benefits flowing from the said report pertaining to the right of Personal Promotion (PP for short ).

( 5 ) THE SEC was mainly concerned with following points for submission of its report : (a) Evaluation; (b) Decisions pertaining to grant of normal increments withholding of increments accelerated increments personal promotions and promotions from one scale to another; (c) Recommendations regarding creation of new posts for administrative staff; (d) Decisions regarding promotions / selections on the basis of tests/interviews data on candidates provided by appropriate sub- committees it may appoint for specific posts; and (e) Recommendations regarding general policy guidelines on staff development and training.

( 6 ) SINCE the recommendations of the SEC were accepted by the Management the benefits of personal promotion is made available to the staff members of the IIMA. We are vitally concerned in this petition about the interpretation of the said provisions pertaining to the personal promotion. The petitioners have inter alia contended in this petition that they are entitled to the benefits of personal promotion as they have not received such benefit earlier though it was offered. The contention of the respondents is that having once declined the offer to avail the benefit of personal promotion would ipso facto debar the staff members from claiming such benefit (Personal Promotion) in the entire service life. The right to get once the benefit of personal promotion is unconcerned with the benefit of a regular promotion and it is not in dispute. The dispute revolves round the interpretation of the right to avail the personal promotion. Could it be said that having once not accepted the offer of personal promotion in the one pay scale ipso facto constitutes a bar or an impediment in availing such benefit in future in other permissible pay scale ? In other words would refusal to avail benefit of personal promotion in one pay scale at one point of time would tantamount to having received such a benefit in future ? In fact the respondent-IIMA (which this court is told that has high reputatio