The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person to be aggrieved by a decision in order to maintain a writ petition. The court also emphasized the principles of locus standi in public interest litigation and the importance of enforcing statutory rights through writ jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22. 3. 2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the Chancellor and the reference dated 11. 12. 2003, made by the Executive Council (Annexure-3), to refer the matter to the Chancellor, disagreeing with the recommendations of the selection Committee.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in various departments of the university of Allahabad, candidature of the teachers, i. e. , Lecturers, Readers were considered for grant of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme/personal Promotion Scheme who had completed the requisite period of service. In the regular cadre of Professors, Readers, large number of vacancies existed. Advertisement was made to fill up the same. However, the government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order dated 10. 9. 2003, staying all selection and appointments through direct recruitment. While passing the order, the promotion under the career Advancement Scheme were also stopped. On representation of the eligible candidates, state Government issued an order dated 26. 9. 2003, modifying its earlier order dated 10. 9. 2003, that the promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme/career Advancement Scheme may be considered. For that purpose, Selection Committee were constituted and made recommendations. It could not be implemented, as some enquiries were conducted in the University regarding financial irregularities and State Government passed the order dated 14. 11. 2003, restraining the university from placing the recommendations made by Selection Committee before the executive Council till the enquiry in financial embezzlement is completed. Being aggrieved, petitioner, who was also one of the candidates for promotion to the post of Professor, filed Writ petition No. 51565 of 2003, G. K. Rai and Ors. v. State of U. P. , for quashing the said order and directing the respondent University to place the recommendation of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 3. 12. 2003, by which the order of the Government dated 14. 11. 2003 was quashed. In pursuance of the said order, recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council on 11. 12. 2003 and when the matter was placed before the Executive Council, it was revealed that certain candidates had been recommended for promotion but some were not recommended for promotion. The Executive Council approved the recommendations vide order dated 11. 12. 2003, giving promotions to those candidates who had been approved by the Selection committee. However, the cases of those candidates who were not found suitable, were referred to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter called the Act. On receiving the aforesaid reference dated 11. 12. 2003, the learned Chancellor passed an order dated 12. 3. 2004, constituting a Committee of Experts to examine the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in respect of those candidates who had not been found suitable. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI R. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Career advancement Scheme is meant for those teachers who have outstanding career, have made large number of publications and they are being considered for

promotion on personal post (supernumerary post) and once the Selection Committee made a recommendation, the Executive council without recording a finding that the Selection Committee was biased or acted mala fide, without recording appropriate and sufficient reasons having no good ground, could make the reference to the Chancellor under the Act and the Chancellor further was not required to constitute a Committee to reconsider the whole issue or sitting as a Reviewing Authority of the previous Selection Committee. Such a course is not envisaged under the provisions of the Act or the Allahabad University Statute. Thus,