JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - These writ petitions by ten teachers of the Banaras Hindu University (for short `University') are directed against the orders of the University rejecting their claim for being considered for promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme (for short `scheme'). Since these writ petitions involve common questions of law they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. It appears that Dr. S. K. Roy, Dr. H.N. Singh, Dr. D.N. Tyagi, Dr. S. C. Varma and Dr. D. N. Pandey, who were working as Readers in the University applied for being considered for promotion to the posts of Professors in their respective departments under the scheme. Similarly Dr. S. B. Bhattacharya and Dr. (Mrs.) M. K. Tripathi who were working as lecturers applied for being considered for promotion to the posts of Readers in their respective departments. Their applications were, however, rejected by the University on the ground that they had not completed eight years continuous service in their respective cadres of Readers and Lecturers by 31st March, 1985 and therefore they were not eligible for being considered for promotion. 3. Dr. K. C. Jain, Dr. D. K. Das Gupta and Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava who were working as Lecturers in the University applied for promotion to the posts of Readers in their respective departments under the Scheme in the year 1983 but were not found suitable for promotion by the selection committee constituted for the purpose and therefore their applications were rejected. Subsequently they again applied for their promotion under the said scheme but this time their applications were rejected by the University on the ground that requisite period of one year from the date of rejection of their first applications had not lapsed and therefore they were not eligible for being considered for promotion. Feeling aggrieved petitioners have come up to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Considering the questions of law involved in these writ petitions they can be classified into three groups. Writ Petitions filed on behalf of Dr. S. K. Roy, Dr. H. N. Singh, Dr. D. N. Tyagi, Dr. S. C. Varma and Dr. D. N. Pandey can be placed in one group, while those filed on behalf of Dr. S. B. Bhattacharya and Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Kanta Tripathi in second group and the writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. K. C. Jain, Dr. S. K. Roy, Dr. H. N. Singh, Dr. D. N. Tyagi, Dr. S. C. Varma and Dr. D. N. Pandey can be placed in one group, while those filed on behalf of Dr. S. B. Bhattacharya and Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Kanta Tripathi in second group and the writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. K. C. Jain, Dr. D. K. Das Gupta and Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava in the third group. 5. The point for determination in the first and second sets of writ petitions is as to whether petitioners of these writ petitions had completed eight years continuous service in their respective cadres of Readers and Lecturers on the appointed date, while the point for determination in the third set of writ petitions is as to whether the bar that a candidate whose candidature for promotion was rejected initially would be entitled to apply again for promotion only after a lapse of one year was over on the relevant date. 6. The University which had initially contested the claim of all the petitioners had intimated to this Court during the course of arguments that in view of the changed circumstances the Vice-Chancellor of the University has decided to place the recommendations of the selection committees regarding the teachers who have appeared before the selection committee under the interim orders of this Court before the Executive Council for their promotion but their promotion would be effective from the date of their joining following their appointment. Letter No. Lit. Cell/606, dated 15-1-1986 written by the Deputy Registrar (Administration) II of the University to Sri Sidheswari Prasad, learned Standing Counsel of the University which is on record runs as under :- "Kindly refer to your letter dated Jan. 13, 1986, desiring certain information. I am directed to inform you that since the Merit Promotion Scheme has been extended by the U. G. C. with effect from 1-4-1986, the Vice-Chancellor has desired that the recommendations of the respective Selection Committees regarding such teachers as have appeared before the Selection Committee under the interim Orders of the High Court be placed before the Executive Council in accordance with the eligibility conditions laid down by the U. G. C. for the Merit Promotion Scheme. It is also informed that joining of Lecturers/Readers appointed as Reader/Professor under Merit Promotion Scheme (P. P. Scheme) is reckoned with effect from the date they join the respective posts following their appointments. The following teachers are not eligible for consideration under the Merit Promotion Scheme : 1. Dr. I.P. Singh : He was appointed Lecturer on probation with effect from 22-9-1982. 2. Dr. H.C. Saxena : He was appointed Lecturer on probation with effect from 27-7-1983. 7. Dr. I.P. Singh and Dr. H.C. Saxena, who according to the University, are not eligible for being considered for promotion under the Scheme, are not before us and here we are concerned only with the candidates who are now eligible for being considered for promotion even according to the case of the University. These writ petitions could be decided on the basis of the letter of the University quoted above but for the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for promotion with retrospective effect which the University is not prepared to accept. Thus we proceed to examine the claim of the petitioners on merits. 8. The University Grants Commission introduced Merit Promotions Scheme for the promotion of the teachers who have done outstanding work in their subjects. It also provided guidelines for implementation of the said scheme. Cl. (a) of para 2 of the Scheme provides that teachers in the University engaged in advanced teaching and research and whose contributions are such as to merit recognition may be considered for merit promotion in the first instance, after completing eight years of continuous service in their respective cadres, of which at least four years should be in the institution where he/she is being considered for such assessment and merit promotion, while Cl. (b) provides that any teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit promotion in the initial presentation could, however, submit his work again only after a lapse of two years. Cl. (b) was subsequently amended to reduce the period of two years to one year. 9. All the five petitioners of the first set of writ petitions were promoted on the posts of Readers in their respective departments on 31st Oct. Cl. (b) was subsequently amended to reduce the period of two years to one year. 9. All the five petitioners of the first set of writ petitions were promoted on the posts of Readers in their respective departments on 31st Oct. 1977 with effect from 24-1-1977 by identical orders which read thus : "Dear Sir, To mark the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of the University, the Executive Council at its meeting held on October 27, 1977 promoted you as a Reader under the Personal Promotion Scheme with effect from Basant Panchami day of 1977 viz., January 24, 1977. Your pay as a Reader in the scale of Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1900 will be fixed according to rules and a separate communication will follow in this regard. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible Dy. Registrar (Admn.) 10. The claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Readers with effect from 24th Jan., 1977 and had therefore completed eight years' continuous service in that,cadre before 31st March, 1985. On the other hand, the stand of the University is that the petitioners were appointed as Readers on 31st Oct., 1977 and as such they had not completed eight years' continuous service in that cadre by the appointed date. Thus it has to be decided as to which of the two dates viz. 24th Jan., 1977 and 31st Oct., 1977 should be the starting point for counting the length of service of the petitioners in the cadre of Readers. The petitioners were appointed as Readers with effect from 24th Jan., 1977 and were also paid salary in that cadre from the same date and therefore ordinarily their services on the posts of Readers should be counted from 24th Jan., 1977. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the University is that as the petitioners did not actually work on the posts of Readers between 24th Jan., 1977 and 31st Oct., 1977, this period cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the actual experience gained by them on that posts. Cl. (a) of pars 2 talks of eight years' continuous service and not eight years' actual experience in the particular cadre and therefore even if the petitioners did not work on the posts of Readers from 24th January, 1977 to 31st Oct., 1977 it cannot be claimed that they also did not serve in that cadre during that period. 11. Cl. (a) of pars 2 talks of eight years' continuous service and not eight years' actual experience in the particular cadre and therefore even if the petitioners did not work on the posts of Readers from 24th January, 1977 to 31st Oct., 1977 it cannot be claimed that they also did not serve in that cadre during that period. 11. The merit promotion scheme was introduced to give certain benefits to the University teachers of outstanding merit. The number of posts in different cadres are not fixed and they vary from time to time according to the actual strength of teachers in the immediate lower cadre. The promotion under this scheme is more in the nature of financial gain than the actual promotion to the next higher post which is similar to the selection grade under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and time scale and super time scale in certain Government services. 12. It is also significant to note that the requirement of clause (a) is eight years' continuous service in a cadre and not on a post of which at least four years should be in the institution where he/she is being considered for such assessment and merit promotion which further indicates that under this clause it is the length of service and not the actual experience that matters. The Executive Council was legally competent to give retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Readers and, therefore, if it appointed the petitioners on those posts on 31st Oct., 1977 with effect from 24th Jan., 1977 for the reasons that they were selected for the posts on that date or for some other reasons, it committed no mistake. Once the petitioners were appointed as Readers with effect from 24th Jan., 1977, and were also paid salary in that cadre from that date it does not lie in the mouth of the University to say that the petitioners did not serve in the cadre of Readers between 24th Jan., 1977 and 31st Oct., 1977 more so when the nature of work of lecturer and Reader is the same. The petitioners who were appointed as Readers on 31st Oct., 1977 with effect from 24th Jan., 1977 had completed eight years' continuous service in that cadre before 31st March, 1985 irrespective of the fact that they did not actually work on that post from 24-1-1977 to 31-10-1977 and they were fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the next cadre of professors. 13. Dr. S.B. Bhattacharya and Dr. (Mrs.) M. K. Tripathi petitioners of second set of writ petitions were appointed as temporary lecturers in the University on 4th Sept., 1972 and 10th Sept., 1974 respectively. They continued to work as temporary Lecturers till 3rd July 1980 when their appointments were made permanent. In 1983 they applied for promotion to the posts of Readers in their respective departments under the scheme. They were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 18-3-1983 and were not found fit for promotion and as such their applications were rejected. On 8-10-1984 petitioners were requested by the University to send their applications for being considered for second round of promotion. It appears that the petitioners did not submit their work in compliance of the said letter and therefore on 1-12-1984 the University again requested them to send the necessary applications. The petitioners accordingly applied for promotion to the posts of Readers in the second round of promotion but their applications were rejected on the ground that they had not completed eight years' continuous service in the cadre of lecturers by 31st March, 1985. 14. The claim of the petitioners is that they having been appointed as Lecturers in the University on 4-9-1972 and 10th Sept., 1974 had completed eight years' continuous service in cadre of lecturer much before the appointed date and were therefore eligible for being considered for promotion to the posts of lecturers under the scheme. On the other hand, the stand of the University is that the period for which the petitioners worked as temporary lecturers cannot be taken into consideration while calculating their length of service for the promotion under Cl. (a) of para 2 of the Scheme. 15. Clause (a) of para 2 of the Scheme requires eight years' continuous service in the respective cadre without making any distinction between temporary and permanent service. (a) of para 2 of the Scheme. 15. Clause (a) of para 2 of the Scheme requires eight years' continuous service in the respective cadre without making any distinction between temporary and permanent service. The petitioners who were appointed as Lecturers on 4th Sept., 1972 and 10th Sept., 1974 respectively continued to work on their respective posts till their appointments were made permanent on 3rd July, 1980. Treating their services continuous they were also given annual increments during this period. Not only this, they were also considered for promotion in the first round of promotion in the year 1983. It is strange that University found them eligible for consideration in the first round of promotion in 1983 and has rejected their applications on the ground that they have not completed eight years' continuous service in the cadre of lecturer in 1985. The petitioners who, according to the University, had completed eight years' continuous service in the year 1983 cannot be left out of consideration in the second round of promotion held in the year 1985. Once the University while calculating the length of service of the petitioners in the cadre of lecturers for the purpose of first round of promotion took into consideration the period for which they worked as temporary lecturers it was estopped from claiming that the said period of service cannot be taken into consideration while calculating their length of service for the second round of promotion. In our opinion petitioners had completed eight years continuous service in the cadre of lecturer before the appointed date and they were fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the posts of lecturers under Cl. (a) of para 2 of the Scheme. 16. All the three petitioners in the third set of writ petitions applied for promotion to the posts of lecturers in their respective departments under the scheme in the year 1983 but were not found suitable for promotion by the selection committee constituted for the purpose. While Dr. K. C. Jain and Dr. D. K. Das Gupta applied for promotion on 13th Jan., 1983, Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava applied for promotion on 15th Feb., 1983. They were interviewed by their respective selection committees on 12th July, 1984, 10th July, 1984 and 15th Aug., 1984 respectively but were not found suitable for promotion and accordingly their applications were rejected. K. C. Jain and Dr. D. K. Das Gupta applied for promotion on 13th Jan., 1983, Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava applied for promotion on 15th Feb., 1983. They were interviewed by their respective selection committees on 12th July, 1984, 10th July, 1984 and 15th Aug., 1984 respectively but were not found suitable for promotion and accordingly their applications were rejected. They again applied for promotion under the said scheme on 9th May, 1985, 12th Feb., 1985 and 26th Nov., 1984 respectively. 17. Their applications were, however, rejected by the University on the ground that requisite one year period from the date of rejection of their first applications had not lapsed and therefore they were not eligible for being considered for promotion. The claim of the petitioners that they had applied for first round of promotion in January-February, 1983 and second round of promotion after a lapse of one year requisite period on 9-5-1984, 12-2-1984 and 26-11-1984 respectively and therefore they were eligible for being considered for promotion in the second round. 18. On the other hand, the stand of the University is that the claim of the petitioners for promotion in the first round was rejected on 12-7-1984, 10-7-1984 and 5-8-1984 respectively and as the one year requisite period had not lapsed since then the petitioners were not entitled for being considered for second round of promotion. 19. Cl. (b) of para of the scheme provides that any teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit promotion in the initial presentation could, however, submit his work again only after a lapse of one year. While Cl. (c) provides that teachers interested in such assessment and consideration of merit promotion should present their work to the University through their departments latest by 31st December each year or a date stipulated by the University. Cl. (d) provides that University will generally take a decision before the beginning of the next academic year so that such promotion can become effective from the date of the beginning of the next academic session. Thus under the scheme the teachers interested for being considered for merit promotion should present their work to the University latest by 31st December each year or a date stipulated by the University and the University should generally take a decision before the beginning of the next academic year, i.e. before the end of following June. Thus under the scheme the teachers interested for being considered for merit promotion should present their work to the University latest by 31st December each year or a date stipulated by the University and the University should generally take a decision before the beginning of the next academic year, i.e. before the end of following June. In this case the petitioners had admittedly presented their work to the University in January-February, 1983 and, therefore, in normal course decisions in their matters should have been taken by the University by 30th June, 1983, but for no fault on their part their cases were not considered by the selection committee for over one and a half year. The intention of the scheme appears to be that the merit of a candidate should be assessed for first round promotion on the basis of material submitted by him at the time of initial presentation and if the claim is rejected then he may again submit his work for the second round of promotion after the lapse of one year and his merit should be assessed for second round of promotion on the basis of material submitted by him at the time of second presentation, which means if a candidate fails to get himself selected on the basis of his merit existing on the date of initial presentation he should be considered for second round of promotion after putting one more year of service which may enable him to improve his merit. Thus the relevant date is the date of presentation of work by a candidate and not the date of rejection of his candidature. Thus, in our opinion, under Cl. (b) of para 2 of the Scheme there should be a gap of at least one year between the two presentations and not between the date of rejection in first round and presentation for the second round as claimed by the University. Under the scheme teachers desirous of being considered for merit promotion have only to present their work to the University latest by 31st December each year or a date stipulated by the University and thereafter they had no control over the subsequent proceedings. Under the scheme University should generally take decision in their matter by the end of that academic session but if it does not take decision by that time they have got no machinery to compel it to do so. Under the scheme University should generally take decision in their matter by the end of that academic session but if it does not take decision by that time they have got no machinery to compel it to do so. Since the scheme does not require the University to take decision necessarily before the end of that academic session it can easily delay the matter as has been done in these cases. The University has failed to take decision not by the end of that particular academic sessions but for the whole of the next academic session for no ostensible reasons. if the claim of the petitioners for promotion on the basis of their initial presentation made in January-February, 1983 was considered by the end of June, 1983 as required under the scheme then this situation would not have arisen. For this reason also we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the University that one year period under Cl. (b) of para 2 of the Scheme should be counted from the date of rejection of the claim of the petitioners for the first round of promotion and not from the date of their initial presentation. The interpretation of cl. (b) put by the learned counsel, if accepted, will give a long handle to the University authorities to harass the teachers, who though meritorious but are not of their favour by delaying decision in their cases which will affect not only their seniority in the University but may also result in delay of their promotion in the next higher cadre. They may further jeopardise the interest of such teachers by expediting the decision in the cases of the teachers of their favour which the University Grants Commission would have never intended to permit. Thus, in our opinion, all the ten petitioners were eligible for being considered for merit promotion on the relevant date and the University erred in taking a contrary view. 20. All these petitioners except Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava had appeared before the selection committee under the interim orders of this Court. However, recommendations of the selection committee were not considered by the Executive Council for want of suitable directions from this Court. 20. All these petitioners except Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava had appeared before the selection committee under the interim orders of this Court. However, recommendations of the selection committee were not considered by the Executive Council for want of suitable directions from this Court. During the course of arguments on 17-1-1986 we were informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the Executive Council was in session and therefore we directed that Executive Council to consider the recommendations of the selection committee about the petitioners in that session unless it was physically impossible. Thus the Executive Council must have taken some decision about the petitioners or will do so in its next meeting. In our opinion, in case these nine teachers have been selected for promotion by the respective selection committees and the recommendations of the selection committee are approved by the Executive Council, they will be entitled for promotion with effect from the same date from which other teachers of the University interviewed along with them were appointed. For instance, if the claim of the petitioners that all the teachers of the University interviewed on 31st March, 1985 were promoted with effect from 1-4-1985, then Mr. S. K. Roy will also be entitled to promotion from the said date in view of the fact that he was also interviewed on 31st March, 1985. 21. An interim order directing the University to permit Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava to appear before the selection committee was also passed in her writ petition but as no selection committee was constituted for the purpose she could not avail of that opportunity. In our opinion, she is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Reader along with the candidates who had applied for being considered for merit promotion scheme by 31-12-1984. 22. In the result, all these writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the orders of the University rejecting the applications of the petitioners for being considered for merit promotion are quashed. The University is directed to promote Dr. S. K. Roy, Dr. H. N. Singh, Dr. D. N. Tyagi, Dr. S. C. Varma and Dr. D.N. Pandey to the posts of Professors and Dr. S.B. Bhattacharya, Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Tripathi, Dr. K.C. Jain and Dr. The University is directed to promote Dr. S. K. Roy, Dr. H. N. Singh, Dr. D. N. Tyagi, Dr. S. C. Varma and Dr. D.N. Pandey to the posts of Professors and Dr. S.B. Bhattacharya, Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Tripathi, Dr. K.C. Jain and Dr. D.K. Das Gupta to the posts of Readers in their respective departments if they have been selected by their respective selection committees and the recommendations of the selection committee are approved by the Executive Council. The University is further directed to convene a meeting of the selection committee to assess the merit of Dr. (Mrs.) Madhuri Srivastava for promotion to the post of Reader in the Economics department along with the candidates who had applied for promotion to the said post by 31st Dec. 1984, within one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of order before it. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs of the writ petitions.