1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.7095 of 2023, filed by the respondentpetitioner. Learned Single Judge vide order under challenge has stayed the decision of the Seniority Committee dated 07.02.2023, which held the appellant to be senior to the respondent-petitioner. Learned Single Judge also directed the charge of the Head of the Department to be given to the Professor, who is senior on the basis of his date of eligibility under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAS') as per clause 16.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

2. The appellant was the respondent in the writ petition and it is admitted that the order of learned Single Judge came to be passed without hearing the appellant.

3. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge amounts to grant of final relief at the interim stage itself, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Seniority Committee were not only stayed by learned Single Judge but even the relief, which could have been granted only after quashing the recommendation, has been granted. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Maharashtra vs. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, (1995) 3 SCC 257, [LQ/SC/1995/244] wherein the Court has held as under in para 11:-

"11. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See : Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260, 265 [LQ/SC/1984/322] : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] ; State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [(1985) 3 SCC 217, 224] [LQ/SC/1985/115] .]."

4. It is also urged on behalf of the appellant that the nature of order passed by learned Single Judge has caused serious prejudice to the appellant and though the order appears to be in the nature of interim order but it affects matter of moments and has the trappings of a judgment and, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.

5. On behalf of the respondent-petitioner it is, however, submitted that the decision of the Seniority Committee was clearly contrary to the facts recited in its own order and the learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly suspended its operation. It is further argued that the only direction given by the learned Single Judge is to give charge of Head of Department to Professor who is senior on the basis of his date of eligibility under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per clause 16.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has granted final relief. It is also submitted that the direction to give charge to the senior is otherwise in consonance with clause 2.19 of the Statutes of the University.

6. We have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Shiv Baboo Singh for the appellant and Sri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh for the respondentpetitioner and have perused the materials brought on record.

7. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, learned Senior Counsels for the parties submit that the special appeal and the writ petition be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself without calling for any further affidavits in the matter. The special appeal and writ petition both are accordingly taken on board and are being finally disposed of in terms of the consent so expressed by the counsels for the parties.

8. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi is a State University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The appellant and the contesting respondent both were substantively appointed by way of direct recruitment on the post of Reader on 12.12.2005. The appellant joined pursuant to such appointment on the post of Reader on 22.12.2005, whereas respondent-petitioner joined on 19.01.2006. The respondentpetitioner, however, asserted that he had been appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Social Work on 04.08.1992 in Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur (Rajasthan) on regular basis. The institution was a deemed University. He was given the benefit of senior selection grade and was promoted as Reader w.e.f. 04.08.2005 vide order passed by Registrar of the said institution on 28.03.2007.

9. According to respondent-petitioner his services recognized as Reader w.e.f. 04.08.2005 at Rajasthan was liable to have been counted towards his working on the post of Reader and to determine his eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor. It was also asserted by the respondent-petitioner before learned Single Judge that his plea in that regard was considered by the University when he was granted promotion on the post of Professor. An order came to be passed by the University on 30.10.2014 granting designation and pay scale of Professor both to the appellant and respondent-petitioner on the basis of CAS. The date of eligibility of appellant has been mentioned as 22.12.2011 in the order dated 30.10.2014. This is so, as the eligibility for promotion under the CAS was the substantive working as Reader for a period of six years. So far as the respondent-petitioner is concerned, the date of eligibility was to be determined later. According to respondent-petitioner, the University passed an order on 23.01.2019 determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS w.e.f. 04.08.2011. Services rendered at Rajasthan between 04.08.2005 to 19.01.2006 was added as a Reader. The respondent-petitioner also asserted that the order dated 23.01.2019 also determined provisional seniority and objections were invited to it. No subsequent order varying the seniority has been passed by the competent authority. Respondent-petitioner consequently relied upon clause 16.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 to contend that the interse seniority between the direct recruitee and teacher promoted under CAS has to be determined with reference to the date of eligibility, as is indicated in the recommendation of the Selection Committee of respective candidates. Clause 16.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is relied upon by learned Single Judge which is extracted hereinafter:-

"16.3. Inter-se seniority between the direct recruited and teachers promoted under CAS.

The inter-se seniority of a direct recruit shall be determined with reference to the date of joining and for the teachers promoted under the CAS with reference to the date of eligibility as indicated in the recommendations of the selection committee of the respective candidates. The rules and regulations of the respective Central/ State Government shall apply, for all other matters of seniority."

10. The records, however, reveal that the Registrar of University subsequently passed an order on 29.01.2021 noticing the fact that seniority on the post of Professor was disputed and consequently, directed the appellant to function as Head of Department of Social. This order dated 29.01.2021 came to be challenged before the Chancellor, who vide his order dated 28.01.2022 has set aside the order dated 29.01.2021 and directed the interse seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent-petitioner to be determined afresh by the Seniority Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor. It is pursuant to this order of the Chancellor that the Seniority Committee has considered the issue in its meeting dated 07.02.2023. Facts, with respect to initial appointment and working of appellant vis-a-vis respondent-petitioner is noticed by the Seniority Committee. The Committee then placed reliance of clause 15.05(c) of the Statutes of University as being the criteria for determination of such interse seniority. Clause 15.05(c) of the Statutes of the University is extracted hereinafter:-

"15.05(c). When any teacher holding substantive post in any University (other than the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith) or in any constituent College or in any Institute whether in the State of Uttar Pradesh or outside Uttar Pradesh, whether before or after August 1, 1989 is appointed to a post of corresponding rank or grade in the University, the period of service rendered by such teacher in that grade or rank in such University shall be added to his length of service."

11. The Seniority Committee noticed that the benefit of post and pay scale under CAS has been granted to the respondent-petitioner w.e.f. 04.08.2011. The Committee relying upon the fact that the appellant had joined prior in point of time as Reader in the University and the joining of respondent-petitioner was later, ultimately held the appellant to be senior to the respondent-petitioner as Reader. Aggrieved by such order of the Seniority Committee the respondent-petitioner filed Writ-A No.7095 of 2023 wherein learned Single Judge has passed the order under challenge.

12. Having heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties and upon perusal of materials brought on record this Court finds that the issue raised in the matter is with regard to counting of the past services of respondentpetitioner as Reader w.e.f. 04.08.2005 to 19.01.2006. Since entitlement for the post of Professor was to arise only after working of six years, the event, in that regard, would occur after 2010, by when the UGC Regulations had come into force. It is otherwise settled that the applicable UGC Regulations would determine the issue notwithstanding any contrary stipulation in the Statutes (See: Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179) [LQ/SC/2022/294 ;] . This issue was thus required to be considered in terms of the Clause 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Clause 10 provides for counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. The requirement to be met for counting of past services are clearly specified in clause 10.1(a) to 10.1(g) of the UGC Regulations, which are extracted hereinafter:-

"10.0 Counting of Past Services For Direct Recruitment And Promotion Under CAS.

10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University. College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III- Table No. II provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor. Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the prerevised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.

(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.

(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;

(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and.

(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government). was considered for counting past services under this clause."

13. It is admitted to both the parties that the consideration of Seniority Committee omits to take import of clause 10.1, which was required to be followed for the purposes of counting of past services. The Seniority Committee infact proceeded to rely upon the clause 15.05(c) of the Statutes and altogether ignored the working of respondent-petitioner w.e.f. 04.08.2005 to 19.01.2006 at Rajasthan. Whether such working was required to be reckoned towards eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor has completely escaped the attention of the concerned Committee. Infact the Seniority Committee instead of determining interse seniority on the post of Professor has proceeded to determine the seniority on the post of Reader, which was wholly unwarranted. The date of entry into service as Reader was undisputed i.e. 12.12.2005 for the appellant and 19.01.2006 for the respondent-petitioner.

14. The fact that both the appellant and respondentpetitioner were appointed on the same day as Reader in the University i.e. 12.12.2005 was undisputed. The fact that date of joining was the criteria for determination of interse seniority is also not disputed. The respondentpetitioner had, however, claimed benefit of counting of past services as Reader in the deemed Unversity at Rajasthan w.e.f. 04.08.2005. The benefit of post of Reader was infact given to the respondent-petitioner for the first time in the year 2007. Whether such working could have been counted for the purposes of determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor was thus the issue that required consideration. The facts were thus required to be examined with reference to clause 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 to determine whether the past services of respondent-petitioner was liable to be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion under the CAS.

15. Since there is no consideration of cause on relevant parameters as such the determination made by the Seniority Committee vide its decision dated 07.02.2023 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2023 is also set aside in order to facilitate a fresh consideration of cause by the competent authority i.e. the Seniority Committee on the relevant parameters i.e. clause 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. The matter stands remitted to the Seniority Committee for a fresh determination of cause in terms of the above observations, keeping in view the provisions contained in clause 10.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Such consideration would be made by way of a reasoned speaking order, after affording opportunity to both the parties and the University, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The decision as to who would function as Head of the Department would abide by the determination of the Seniority Committee.

16. The instant appeal and the writ petition both are, accordingly, disposed of.