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. Union of India, AIR 1984 Del 413 . A very bare reading of the facts of the case demonstrates that the decision was rendered in different circumstances. This Court had occasion to consider it in P.D. Tandon v. State, 1986 (2) All Rent Cas 218 : AIR 1987 All 56 . In any case it is a very debatable issue if such unjust submissions can be advanced either by the beneficiary or those who have passed the order. It is another matter that the Court may not consider it appropriate to interfere in a particular case. But that is in realm of discretionary exercise of jurisdiction. In any case it is a very debatable issue if such unjust submissions can be advanced either by the beneficiary or those who have passed the order. It is another matter that the Court may not consider it appropriate to interfere in a particular case. But that is in realm of discretionary exercise of jurisdiction. An aggrieved person invoking equity jurisdiction of this Court should not, normally, be denied the relief once he has been able to establish arbitrariness otherwise it shall provide an excuse or handle to those who are at the helm of affairs to act arbitrarily and then defend their action on this principle. It is a dangerous proposition in a society which functions on various considerations at times even extraneous. By granting relief in such cases the Court does not perpetrate illegality but attempts to maintain the balance even to enable the stream of equality social or economic flow evenly". Long standing practice of the University to condone break in service in such cases would have also possibly led the petitioner to believe that break in his service would also be likewise condoned more so when he was given extra increments at the time of his re-appointment as lecturer in the University to bring his salary at par with the salary he was drawing on that date as Reader in Sri Ayurved College. Thus, in this case the University which has admittedly been condoning breaks in service in such cases was not legally justified i refusing to do so in the case of the petitioner. 5. Now, it remains to be considered whether the service rendered by the petitioner in Shri Ayurved College has to be taken into consideration while computing eight years' service in the same cadre. 'Cadre' has been defined in Ordinance 4 of the University to mean the strength of service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. According to Ordinance 5.1 cadres and the posts under the University shall be as specified in Appendix V to the rules. In Appendix V the entire staff of the University has been divided into two parts (i) Teaching Staff and (ii) Non-Teaching Staff. Posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer are shown in the category of Teaching Staff while all other staff of the University including Registrar are shown in the category of Non-Teaching Staff. In Appendix V the entire staff of the University has been divided into two parts (i) Teaching Staff and (ii) Non-Teaching Staff. Posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer are shown in the category of Teaching Staff while all other staff of the University including Registrar are shown in the category of Non-Teaching Staff. From the above the petitioner wants us to infer that there are two cadre: in the University, namely, Teaching cadre and non-teaching cadre and that Professor, Reader and Lecturers are the three posts in the teaching cadre. However, it is not necessary for us to go into this controversy as in our opinion the petitioner can be granted relief even otherwise. 6. 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. Clause (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 clause (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. Clause (b) was subsequently amended to reduce the period of two years to one year. 7. 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. Intermediat Education Act and time scale and super time scale in certain Government services. ' 8. Merit is the sole consideration for promotion in the Scheme. 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. Intermediat Education Act and time scale and super time scale in certain Government services. ' 8. Merit is the sole consideration for promotion in the Scheme. In our view it cant by no stretch of imagination be claimed that the merit of the petitioner was adversely affected for his working on the post of Reader in Shri Ayurved College. In other words the petitioner who would have become eligible for promotion to the post of Reader had he continued as a lecturer in the University could not become disqualified for his having worked on the higher post for few years during this period of eight years. If we give this interpretation to the Scheme then not only the persons like petitioner who left the University to join a higher post in some other University but even the persons who worked on higher posts in the same University on temporary basis for some time would become disqualified which could never have been the intention of the framers of the Scheme which as stated above is to provide avenues of promotion to the meritorious persons. 9. The petitioner who had worked in the University from 26-8-1974 till 31-3-1980 and has again joined on the same post on 22-9-1982 cannot he legally deprived of his chances of promotion to the post of Reader for the only reason that he was fortunate to have worked on the post,of Reader during the period from 21-7-1980 to 20-9-1982 in Shri Ayurved College. He cannot be punished for having worked on the post to which he wants to be promoted long before he could have otherwise become eligible for promotion had he not left the University. It will be really unfortunate to think of the situation in which a person is deprived of his chances of the promotion to the post on which he had already worked for some time in the past for that very reason. 10. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee under the interim order of this Court. However, recommendation of the Selection Committee has not so far been considered by the Executive Council for want of suitable directions by this Court. 10. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee under the interim order of this Court. However, recommendation of the Selection Committee has not so far been considered by the Executive Council for want of suitable directions by this Court. In view of our conclusion that the petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion on the relevant date the recommendation of the Selection Committee had to be placed for consideration before the Executive Council. In case the petitioner has been selected for promotion by the Selection Committee and its recommendation is approved by the Executive Council he will be entitled for promotion to the post of Reader with effect from the same date from which other teachers of the University interviewed for first round of promotion were appointed. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the University rejecting applications of the petitioner for condoning break in service and for being considered for merit promotion are quashed. The University is directed to place the recommendation of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council in its next meeting. It is further directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Reader in the Department of Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences of the University, if he has been selected for promotion by the Selection Committee and its recommendation is approved by the Executive Council with effect from the same date from which other teachers of the University interviewed for first round of promotion were appointed. We direct the parties to bear their own costs.