JUDGMENT

J.N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition by ' Dr. Indra Pratap Singh is directed against the order of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for short 'University) rejecting his claim for being considered for promotion on the post of Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme (for short 'scheme').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the Department of Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences of the University on 26-8-1974 on temporary basis and worked there up to 31-3-1980. On 21-7-1980 he joined as Reader in Shri Ayurved College of the Nagpur University and worked there till 20-9-1982. He again joined as lecturer in the University on 22-9-1982 and since then he has been working as such in the Department of Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences. Subsequently, he applied for promotion to the post of Reader in the said Department under the Scheme but his application was rejected on the ground that he had not completed required eight years' continuous service in the cadre.

3. The sole point for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner has completed eight years' continuous service in the cadre as required under the Scheme. It is not disputed that if the period of service rendered by the petitioner in Shri Ayurved College, Nagpur is taken into consideration and break in service is condoned he had completed eighty ears' continuous service on the relevant date. The claim of the petitioner is that there has been long standing practice in the University to condone break in service in such cases. He has cited number of instances in support of his contention. He further claims that the period for which he worked as Reader in Sri Ayurved College is liable to be taken into consideration for computing eight years' service in the cadre as the lecturer and Reader are the two posts in the same cadre. On the other hand the learned counsel for the University contended that it is true that break in service in some cases was condoned in the past but the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on that basis inasmuch as illegal orders cannot furnish foundation for the petitioner to approach this Court for issuing direction to the University to perpetrate illegality. He further contended that the lecturer and Reader are two different cadres and as such the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Reader in Shri Ayurved College cannot be taken into consideration while computing eight years' service in the cadre of lecturer. Having considered the aforesaid contentions of the parties we are of the opinion that the petitioner. had completed required eight years' service in the cadre on the relevant date and was, therefore, eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Reader.

4. In Class I Officer Association, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur v. State of U.P. Civil Misc. Writ Petri. No. 15181 of 1983 connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 9664 of 1985, decided on 13-8-1987 (Reported in 1988 All WC 49) a Division Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution observed as under:

"Treating persons differently for historical reasons or on mode of recruitment or like may be justified in circumstances in which action is taken or rule is framed or order is issued. But no exception to the doctrine of equal treatment empowers the authorities. concerned to ignore their own rules or defend their action which is contrary to law. The Government order adopting University Grants Commission scale itself provided that professor concerned shall be entitled to scale of Rs. 1500-2500 only if he was in scale of Rs. 1100-1700. And yet the Government granted it. Therefore, none of the cases relied on by learned counsel are relevant for controversy in dispute. As regards next limb of argument that an illegal order is of no avail to petitioners the learned counsel relied on R.K. Deka v.