IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the constitution of the Selection Committee in compliance with the M.S. University Act, emphasizing the legislative mandate's superiority over executive instructions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

“A. The Honourable Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the common order dated 01/03.09.2010 passed by the Honourable Gujarat University Services Tribunal in Application No.4 of 2010.

B. Pending admission and final hearing of the matter, the Honourable Court be pleased to stay the order dated 01/03.09.2010 passed by the Honourable Gujarat University Services Tribunal in Application No.4 of 2010.

2. Short facts of the present petition, in nutshell, are that petitioner No.1 is a University constituted under the Maharaja Sayajirao University Act (for short “the M.S. University Act”) and respondent No.1 is holding the post of Reader in the faculty of technology and engineering. That All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) issued Notification dated 03.05.2000 for revision of pay scales and associate terms and conditions of service of Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Personal of Degree Level Private Self Finance Technical Institutions and the provision for career advancement was made thereunder. The said notification provided that in consultation with the Government of India, the guidelines would be laid down for selection process to be evolved for grant of benefit of career advancement and in continuation of the said notification, the AICTE issued Notification dated 31.07.2001 laying down the guidelines for the process of selection, which provides for constitution of the Selection Committee which would consider the applications under the career advancement scheme. That Syndicate of the petitioner – University considered the guidelines by resolution No.18 dated 31.08.2001 – Appendix 19 issued by the AICTE. It is contended that the Government of Gujarat issued Government Resolution dated 03.07.2006 in view of the Notification issued by AICTE provided for constitution of the Selection Committee for the purpose of career advancement and the petitioner – University in compliance with the Government Resolution dated 03.07.2006 constituted a Selection Committee. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had applied for promotion as professor of Applied Physics in the faculty of Technology and Engineering and he was considered by the Selection Committee, but not recommended for promotion. The respondent No.4 was recommended by Selection Committee constituted by the University and the recommendation was placed before the syndicate in its meeting and vide resolution No.14 – 13, the recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted.

That respondent No.1 approached the Gujarat University Services Tribunal by filing Application No.5 of 2008 for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Selection Committee and the syndicate pertaining to the promotion to professor, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 filed Application No.4 of 2010 for quashing and setting aside the selection process on the ground that the Selection Committee was constituted in violation of Section 8 and Section 48 of the M S University Act and for re-constitution of the Selection Committee. The Tribunal after hearing the parties had allowed the application on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with Section 8A and Section 48 of the M S University Act and hence, the said order is under challenge in this petition.

3. Heard Mr.Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 at length. Perused the materials placed on record.

4. Mr.Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are barred by the principles of res judicata and in the first application, the respondent has not raised the plea that the constitution of the Selection Com