The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility criteria for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per UGC guidelines, and the requirement to count all services rendered for promotion purposes.

1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the respondent / the Registrar, University of Madras, Chennai, in his proceedings No.D1/(B)/TE/CAS PROMOTION/2006//278R, dated 12.01.2006, as confirmed in office communication No.D1/(A)/TE/2007/41, dated 04.12.2007, insofar as it has not counted the period of regular services from 05.08.1989 to 31.03.1995 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Reader under Career Advancement Scheme, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as Reader from 05.08.1998 instead of 01.04.2004 and confer all the consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in the Department of Adult and Continuing Education, Madras University, on 20.11.1987. Subsequently, he was selected to the post of Project Officer in the same department by the Selection Committee on 05.08.1989 and thereafter, he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 05.08.1991. While so, as per the recommendation of the University Grants Commission (UGC), Career Advancement Scheme was introduced and as per the said Scheme, a Senior Grade Lecturer on completion of 5 years, is entitled to be considered for promotion as Reader. Hence, he made a representation requesting to consider him for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as Reader with effect from 05.08.1994. But, the respondent, while considering the request of the petitioner, gave promotion to the post of Reader only with effect from 01.04.2004, instead of 05.08.1998. Challenging the same, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2535 of 2006 insofar as the refusal to count the period of services rendered by him from 05.08.1989 to 31.03.1995. This Court, by order dated 22.11.2006, directed the petitioner to give a representation to the University and thereafter, in turn, the respondent University was also directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent University has passed the impugned order negativing the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. C.Selvaraj, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as per the Career Advancement Scheme framed by the State Government, if any person completes 9 years of service as Lecturer, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Reader, whileso, the petitioner, who joined as Project Officer-cum-Lecturer on 05.08.1989, is entitled for promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 05.08.1998. However, the respondent passed the present impugned order, that too, without assigning any reason for abandonment of the period of service form 05.08.1998 to 01.04.2004, giving promotion only with effect from 01.04.2004. Therefore, it was contended that the denial of promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 05.08.1998 is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Contending further, it was pleaded that the University Grants Commission introduced a scheme of Population Education Resource Centre and offered to all the Universities throughout India as to whether the Universities are accepting the scheme and in the event of accepting the said Scheme, the UGC would give financial assistance to all the Universities for the five years and thereafter, either the State Government or the University must bear the financial commitment. Accepting the said condition imposed by the UGC, the University appointed the required staffs thereof, whereby the petitioner and other similarly placed person came to be appointed in the above scheme. By pointing out so, the learned Senior Counsel contended that had the University refused to take over the scheme on completion of 5 years, the UGC would not have implemented the scheme in the University. Having accepted and implemented the scheme, now the respondent ha