Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.—By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by Chancellor, Deen Dayall Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, Luckow, and Executive Council’s resolution dated 3.7.2012 on Agenda No. -36A (Annexure Nos. -1 and 2 to the writ petition) with further prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to promote the petitioner on the post of Professor in English Department of University from the date of her eligibility under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter called as CAS).

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English Department of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University Gorakhpur on 29.7.1988 and was given senior scale on 29.7.1993. She was further granted the pay scale of Reader w.e.f. 29.7.1998, but the post of Reader was actually given on 13.12.2001. She became eligible for the post w.e.f. the date and the scale was granted in her favour i.e. 29.7.1998. State of U.P. vide order dated 13.3.2001 directed the Universities to incorporate the provisions relating to Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grant Commission (hereinafter called as U.G.C.) with default stipulation as contemplated under Section 50(6) of the Act. In light of the above Government Order, the CAS was implemented in the Universities. The petitioner became eligible for promotion on the post of professor under the CAS scheme, after putting in 8 years of service in the Reader grade w.e.f. 29.7.2006, but the Executive Council turn down her candidature without assigning any reason and aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Council, the petitioner moved a representation before the Chancellor of University. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the Chancellor of the University has quashed the recommendation on 4.5.2011 and directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to reconstitute the Selection Committee and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Professor. On 25.8.2011 the candidature of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee but without any justification it was kept in sealed envelope and later on matter was referred to U.G.C. where the recommendation of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Professor, was disapproved and was communicated to the Vice Chancellor. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Committee on 25.8.2011 and in accordance with provisions of Section 31(8)(Ka), the matter was referred to the Chancellor for the reasons that the Executive Council has not taken the decision since 4 months and by impugned order dated 2.7.2012, the matter was again sent back to consider the benefit of CAS to the petitioner in the light of letter dated 29.2.2012 issued by U.G.C. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the direction to decide the matter of the petitioner in the light of the letter dated 29.2.2012 is without jurisdiction and “ Recommendation of the Selection Committee should have been given effect thereto”

3. For determination of these issues, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of University Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘UGC Act, 1956’), UGC Regulations, 2010, the University Act, 1965 and the statutes framed thereunder.

4. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.

5. Section 12 deals with the ‘function of the Commission’, relevant of which is quoted hereunder:

“It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordin