JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - These writ applications involve common questions of were, therefore, heard together by consent of parties and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Petitioners who had been promoted to the higher posts either of Reader or Professor under the scheme called Merit Promotion Scheme' enunciated by the University Grants Commission, were reverted to the posts of Lecturer or Reader, as the case may be, after a review being made in accordance with the direction issued by the Chancellor and the Petitioner in each of these writ applications assails the said order of reversion. In assailing the order of reversion, the stand of the Petitioner in each of the writ applications is that the Chancellor has no power to review and annul the decision of the Syndicate and the Syndicate having implemented the Scheme, the order of reversion that emanated on account of the Chancellor's decision is without jurisdiction and illegal. It is the further stand of the Petitioner in each of the writ applications that in implementing the decision of the Chancellor, the appropriate authority has failed to make proper calculation and has failed to bear in mind the guidelines of the University Grants Commission with regard to the Merit Promotion Scheme and, therefore, the impugned order of reversion is contrary to law. 3. The stand of the University in the counter affidavit is that the Syndicate Resolution No. 47 dated 24-1-1986 was to the effect that all the posts in all Departments would be clubbed together and then the number law and are being of promotion in each Department has to be determined in accordance with the Resolution of the University Grants Commission. This method was found to be not in consonance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and, therefore, the Chancellor directed the University to rectify the mistake and in accordance with the said direction of the Chancellor, the University rectified the mistake and implemented the Merit Promotion Scheme as envisaged by the University Grants Commission and the impugned orders of reversion are the outcome of such implementation. The University also took the stand that the Chancellor has the power to annul any proceeding of the Syndicate which is not in conformity with the Act or the Statutes and, therefore, there was no illegality in Chancellor's asking the University to rectify the mistake. 4. The University also took the stand that the Chancellor has the power to annul any proceeding of the Syndicate which is not in conformity with the Act or the Statutes and, therefore, there was no illegality in Chancellor's asking the University to rectify the mistake. 4. On behalf of the Chancellor, a counter affidavit has also been filed. It has been stated in the said counter that under the policy enunciated by the University Grants Commission, clubbing is permissible only in those Departments where the number of teacher is only one and, therefore, the Syndicate Resolution clubbing the teachers of all Departments irrespective of number of teachers in the individual Department was on the face of it contrary to the U.G.C. decision and, therefore, the Chancellor directed that the mistake committed by the Syndicate must be rectified. It has also further been stated that the Chancellor before taking a final decision discussed the matter at length with the Administrator and the representatives of the Sambalpur University Teachers' Association. So far as the power of the Chancellor to review a decision taken by the Syndicate is concerned, the stand is that the Chancellor has the power to see, that the decision of the University is in accordance with law since the Chancellor has the overall control of the administration of the University. Since it was found that the Syndicate had committed gross error in the matter of implementation of the Merit Promotion Scheme enunciated by the University Grants Commission and the Government of Orissa also has indicated that if any University has committed any mistake in implementing the Resolution of the University Grants Commission, the said mistake should be rectified, the Chancellor in his capacity of exercising control over the affairs of the University examined the matter and directed re-calculation and taking fresh decision in conformity with the Resolution of the University Grants Commission. In that view of the matter, it is contended that no illegality has been committed by the Chancellor in the matter. 5. There is no dispute that the promotion of the Petitioners had been given in implementation of the Merit Promotion Scheme framed by the University Grants Commission for the University teachers. If in implementing the said Scheme the Syndicate or the University commits any error or transgresses the limit prescribed by the Commission, such error must be rectified. 5. There is no dispute that the promotion of the Petitioners had been given in implementation of the Merit Promotion Scheme framed by the University Grants Commission for the University teachers. If in implementing the said Scheme the Syndicate or the University commits any error or transgresses the limit prescribed by the Commission, such error must be rectified. The promotion by the Syndicate is not on its own but only as a matter of implementation of the Merit Promotion Scheme. In that view of the matter, it would be necessary first to examine the Merit Promotion Scheme itself. The Merit Promotion Scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission clearly stipulates that the Scheme was intended to provide reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers who merit academic recognition on a competitive basis. It was thought that the Scheme would considerably encourage the teachers to engage in advanced teaching and research and make distinct contributions which would merit recognition and promotion. It was, therefore, decided that the teachers in the University departments engaged in advanced teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition, might 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. Paragraph-3 of the Scheme indicated that not more than one-third of the number of total permanent position of lecturers or readers within a department might hold such merit promotion at next higher level at any given time. It was further indicated that not more than two readers might be given such merit promotion as Professors within the department for the duration of plan period and the persons holding such merit promotion would not count for determining the total posts in the cadre of Readers for the purpose of merit promotion to Professors. Under the initial guidelines dated 23rd of November, 1982, therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the Scheme in a department of the University where there were less than three regular Lecturers or Readers. Under the initial guidelines dated 23rd of November, 1982, therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the Scheme in a department of the University where there were less than three regular Lecturers or Readers. To obviate the said difficulty, the Secretary to the University Grants Commission made a further communication dated 11th of November, 1983, wherein it was clarified that the departments which are having a minimum of two regular permanent teaching position in a particular cadre would also be eligible for consideration under the Merit Promotion Scheme. But where the number of teacher in a department is only one and yet the teacher has done work that merits recognition then there would be clubbing of such departments and a promotional channel could be created under the Merit Promotion Scheme provided the number of teachers promoted would not exceed one-third of total number of permanent positions of Lecturers/Readers as prescribed in the Scheme. Thus, clubbing of teachers for determining the number and implementing the scheme would arise only when any Department has only one teacher. In view of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and the Syndicate of the Sambalpur University having clubbed teachers of all departments irrespective of the fact whether the department has one teacher or not and then determining the number of teachers to be promoted transgressed its limits and jurisdiction in the matter or giving promotion to the Lecturers and Readers to the posts of Readers and Professors respectively. 6. From the counter affidavit of the University as well as that of the Chancellor, it is crystal clear that the Syndicate committed a gross error and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the Chancellor's decision requiring the University to rectify the mistake and directing that promotion be given in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, since those guidelines confer jurisdiction on the Syndicate to give the impugned promotions. It cannot be disputed that the Syndicate got the jurisdiction to give promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme in pursuance of the Scheme enunciated by the University Grants Commission. If a promotion is given contrary to the said promotional scheme then the said promotion will be no vest in the eye of law and will not confer any right on the promote. If a promotion is given contrary to the said promotional scheme then the said promotion will be no vest in the eye of law and will not confer any right on the promote. The Chancellor is undoubtedly the head of the University and Sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Sambalpur University Act,(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') confers wide powers on the Chancellor to annul any proceeding of the Senate, Syndicate, Academic Councilor any other authority which is not in conformity with the Act and the Statutes. Mr. Das for the Petitioners contends that the order of the Syndicate giving promotion not being in consonance with the University Grants Commission's directions cannot be equated with the expression...not in conformity with this Act and the Statutes used in Sub Section (7) of Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, the Chancellor cannot be said to have power under the said sub section to annul the decision of the Syndicate. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel. The Syndicate exercises its power under the Act and the Statutes of the University. In exercising that power while effecting promotion it transgressed its limits and gave promotion contrary to the Scheme enunciated by the Grants Commission. In other words, while exercising its power under the Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate did not act in accordance with law and such a decision must be held to be amenable to the Chancellor's jurisdiction under Sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act; Otherwise also, a decision of the Syndicate in the matter of effecting and implementing a scheme which is not in accordance with the Scheme can be required to be corrected by the Chancellor who is undoubtedly the head of the University and on whom the supervisory power has been vested. Consequently, we cannot hold that the Chancellor committed any error in issuing direction to the University to implement the Merit Promotion Scheme in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission on being satisfied that the impugned promotions has not been made in accordance with those guidelines. 7. Consequently, we cannot hold that the Chancellor committed any error in issuing direction to the University to implement the Merit Promotion Scheme in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission on being satisfied that the impugned promotions has not been made in accordance with those guidelines. 7. The next question that arises for our consideration is whether in implementing the scheme pursuant to the direction of the Chancellor, the Administrator or the authority has committed any error, as contended by the Petitioners, or they were justified in effecting reversion and properly implementing the scheme, as contended by the University. In commandeering the aforesaid question, it is necessary to take into notice some other documents apart from the ones already referred to. The University Grants Commission issued a letter on 5th of December, 1985, intimating that the Commission had agreed to grant extension of time for completing the formalities for merit promotion of teachers who are eligible on or before 31-3-1985. But on re-consideration, the Commission decided that the Scheme might continue until the report of the Committee on revision of pay scales of teachers headed by Professor R.C. Mehrotra was received and accepted for implementation after which the Merit Promotion Scheme would automatically stand terminated. This document has been annexed as Annexure-4 to O.J.C. No. 3511 of 1988. It has been asserted by the Petitioners that the Mehrotra Report was accepted on 17-6-1987 by the Central Government for implementation during the Seventh Plan period. Therefore, the merit promotion scheme must be held to have continued till that date. There has been no denial to the aforesaid assertion of the Petitioner either by the University or by the Chancellor. The University Grants Commission further indicated in its letter dated 16th of February, 1983 (annexed as Annexure-6 to the Additional Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner in OJC No. 3511/88) that while calculating the number of positions for purpose of merit promotion wherever more than point five (0.5) fraction would arise, it should be rounded up to one (1.0) for the purpose of merit promotion. The University Grants Commission by its letter to the Registrar, Sambalpur University, dated 3-2-1987 (annexed as Annexure-7 to the Additional Rejoinder of the Petitioner in OJC 3511/88) made a further communication that one-third quota of teachers to be promoted under the Merit Promotion Scheme was to be calculated on the basis of total number of permanent sanctioned posts of lecturers/Readers as on 'today' i.e., 3-2-1987 since Merit Promotion Scheme was still open for those who are eligible. In this view of the matter, we find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. B.B. Mohanty, that while making re-calculation and fixing of the number of persons to be promoted under the Scheme, the authority had not considered the directions of the University Grants Commission. The calculation as given by the University, in the counter affidavit is certainly not in accordance with the aforesaid directions and on the other hand is based on the original direction that had been issued by the University Grants Commission. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appropriate authority of the University while implementing the decision of the Chancellor to give effect to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission has committed an error in making necessary calculation and since the order of reversion is on account of such calculation, we would quash the order of reversion and direct the University to make a fresh calculation bearing in mind the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission from time to time. While we are quashing the order of reversion and directing the University authority to make a fresh calculation, we would make it clear that the Petitioners will not automatically be posted to their promotional posts which they had received on account of the decision of the Syndicate since that decision of the Syndicate, as has been held by us earlier, on the face of it is illegal. But their case for promotion in implementing the Merit Promotion Scheme issued by the University Grants Commission will be re-considered by the appropriate authority of the University and fresh orders of promotion will have to be passed bearing in mind all the principles enunciated by the University Grants Commission from time to time. This may be done within three mammoths from the date of receipt of our order. This may be done within three mammoths from the date of receipt of our order. These writ applications are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 8. I agree. Writ applications allowed. Final Result : Allowed