By the Court.—We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.

2. All the petitioners are working as Readers in the Commerce Department, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. By this writ petition they have prayed for setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as it relates to the petitioners and by which he has accepted the disagreement of the Executive Council of the University to the selections of the petitioners as Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme (in short CAS). The Executive Council found that the selection committee did not meet for consideration of promotion of the petitioners under the CAS, nor a request was made to nominate the subject experts from the panel of experts by the then Vice-Chancellor from the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor unauthorisedly used the panel sent for promotion of Dr. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal for considering the promotions of the petitioners under the CAS.

3. The Chancellor has by the impugned order dated 23/28.12.2010, accepted the disagreement and has cancelled the selections.

4. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (the University) is governed by the provisions of the UP State Universities Act, 1973 (in short, the Act) and the Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder. A notice was issued on 15.6.2007 inviting applications from teachers eligible for being considered for promotion under the CAS.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that a letter was sent by the Registrar of the University to the Chancellor of the University for nominating a panel of experts for participating in the selection proceedings. The Chancellor by his order dated 19.1.2007 recommended a panel of experts from various Departments of the University including the Department of Commerce.

6. The University also issued an advertisement No. 2 of 2006 for appointment on a large number of posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors by direct recruitment followed by advertisement No. 6 of 2006 to the same effect. The selection committee met from 9.9.2007 to 24.9.2007.

7. By the order of the Chancellor dated 26.9.2007 the Vice-Chancellor was restrained from convening any meeting of the selection committee. In a Writ Petition No. 45934 of 2007 the High Court by its judgment dated 4.10.2007 held that once the process of interviews have commenced, the Chancellor does not have powers to issue telephonic orders to stop the selection process. The High Court directed the University to proceed with the selection making it open to the Chancellor to pass appropriate reasoned orders, if sufficient reasons were available to warrant such an action.

8. The Chancellor issued an order on 14.12.2007 again restraining the Vice-Chancellor to undertake any proceedings for appointment on teaching and non-teaching post. The Vice-Chancellor was going to retire on 31.12.2007. This order was again challenged in the High Court by Dr. Vinay Shankar Singh and 13 others in Writ Petition No. 63914 of 2007. The High Court by its interim order dated 20.12.2007 stayed the operation of the order dated 14.12.2007 until further orders. The Chancellor again issued an order on 19.12.2007 directing the Vice-Chancellor not to place the recommendation made by the selection committees before the Executive Council for consideration. The Executive Council in its meeting dated 24.12.2007 after considering various orders passed by this Court and the Chancellor from time to time was of the view that it was fully competent to consider the matter but decided to wait for the decisions in Writ Petition Nos. 897 of 2008; 14220 of 2008 and 12703 of 2008, which were decided on 7.1.2008; 14.3.2008 and 5.3.2008 respectively with observati