JUDGMENT Sreedharan, J. 1. The issues raised in these appeals, Original Petitions and contempt case are one and the same. So, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these appeals, Original Petitions and the contempt case by a common judgment. 2. On hearing counsel appearing on either side in extenso, we feel that we need not go into the facts in detail, that is, the seniority position of the appellants and petitioners among the teaching staff in the colleges and their chance for promotion to the higher posts are not matters to be specifically dealt with. We feel that it will be sufficient to deal with the legal position and then direct State Government and the Director of Collegiate Education to implement the same. By that process, we feel that the grievances of the appellants, petitioners and the respondents will be redressed to their satisfaction. 3. On the implementation of the U.G.C. Scheme by the Government of Kerala, as per Government Order dated 13th March, 1990, members of staff of various colleges filed option statements agreeing to come into that Scheme. Once they opted to come under the Scheme, they are not to be governed by the Special Rules governing the Collegiate Education Service. The grievance of the petitioners in the Original Petitions who have not opted to come under the U.G.C. Scheme was that Government are not implementing the Special Rules in regard to those who have not opted for the Scheme. The Government at that time took the stand that with the introduction of the U.G.C. Scheme, new rules will have to be framed for making promotions to the higher cadres. Until such time the new rules are framed, existing rules are to be followed. Since Government have not framed Special Rules after the implementation of the U.G.C. Scheme, the result was that teachers who were getting U.G.C, scales were also getting promotions according to the old Special Rules. 4. As on today, all members of the staff in the colleges have exercised their option to come under the U.G.C. Scheme. So, the earlier controversy of implementation of the earlier Special Rules for giving promotion to the teaching staff to the higher grades do not exist as on today. 4. As on today, all members of the staff in the colleges have exercised their option to come under the U.G.C. Scheme. So, the earlier controversy of implementation of the earlier Special Rules for giving promotion to the teaching staff to the higher grades do not exist as on today. The only controversy that remains is as to how the Special Rules framed by Government in G.O. (P)41/94/H. Edn., dated 21st March 1994, which was published as S.R.O. No. 350/94, has to be given effect to. The said Special Rule has been made retrospective from 13th March, 1990, the date from which the U.G.C. Scheme was extended to teachers in the Universities and Colleges in the State of Kerala. Promotions to the various categories of posts m the colleges were effected as per the Special Rules relating to Collegiate Education Service. The promotions so effected prior to 13th March 1990 are not open to challenge, because they were made at a time when the said Special Rule governed the service. It was only with effect from 13th March 1990 the Scheme was extended to Kerala. Here we hasten to add that the promotions made mention of must be promotions given on regular basis. In other words, provisional promotions obtained by the members of the staff under R.9(a)(i) or R.31(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will not confer on them any right to that post and so they cannot have any claim to hold on to such posts. 5. While extending the Scheme to Kerala as per order dated 13th March 1990, the Scheme was made operative with effect from 1st January, 1986. Government called for option statements from the teachers for effecting their placement in the category of posts. Forms of option were approved by the Government in G.O. (Ms.) 128/90/H. Edn., dated 29th May, 1990. Pursuant thereto, all the members of the staff filed their option statements duly filled up. On the basis of the said option statements and on the basis of the regular promotion obtained under the then existing Special Rules, all members of the staff will have to be given placement as on 13th March 1990. After making such a placement, their further promotion to the higher cadres must be in accordance with the Special Rules dated 21st March 1994, as amended by G.O. (P) 114/94/H. Edn., dated 6th August, 1994. After making such a placement, their further promotion to the higher cadres must be in accordance with the Special Rules dated 21st March 1994, as amended by G.O. (P) 114/94/H. Edn., dated 6th August, 1994. If all the members of staff arc given placement on the basis of the regular promotions obtained by them in the various categories as on 13th March 1990 and further promotions are given in strict compliance with the new set of Special Rules, the entire grievance of the members of the staff will be redressed. 6. R.9 of the Special Rules contain certain general provisions regarding the implementation of the Special Rules. Clause (3)(a)(i) of R.9 states that candidates who at the time of the initial appointment as Lecturer possess Ph.D. degree will be sanctioned three advance increments along with the benefit of three years reduction of service for the purpose of placement as Lecturer (Senior Scale). Sub-clause (ii) further proceed to state that candidates who at the time of initial appointment as Lecturer possess M. Phil, degree will be sanctioned one advance increment with the benefit of one year reduction of service for the purpose of placement as Lecturer (Senior Scale). According to sub-clause (b) if an existing Lecturer who had not acquired Ph.D. or M. Phil, if acquires that qualification will also be entitled to the benefit of three years or one year reduction in service, as the case may be, for the purpose of placement as Lecturer (Senior Scale). This provision should be strictly adhered to while making the placement of the teachers as stated earlier in this Judgment. 7. From the above discussion, it follows that all members of the staff of colleges will have to be given placement on the basis of the regular post held by them as on 13th March, 1990. While making the placement, the provision contained in R.9 of the Special Rules dated 21st March 1994 will have to be given effect to. 7. From the above discussion, it follows that all members of the staff of colleges will have to be given placement on the basis of the regular post held by them as on 13th March, 1990. While making the placement, the provision contained in R.9 of the Special Rules dated 21st March 1994 will have to be given effect to. After giving such a placement on the basis of the regular promotions obtained by them, we make it clear that the placement cannot be based on the provisional promotion obtained by any of the member either under R.9(a)(i) or R.31(a)(i) of the K.S. and S.S.R., their further promotion must be in strict compliance with the Special Rules framed by the Government in G.O. (P) 41/94/H. Edn., elated 21st March, 1994, as amended by G.O. (P) 114/94/H. Edn., dated 6th August 1994. Promotions if any made between 13th March 1990 and 21st March 1994, i.e. between the date on which the Scheme has been extended to the State of Kerala and the date on which G.O. (P) 41/94/H. Edn. was brought into effect, must be reviewed in strict compliance with the Special Rules of 1994, if not already been reviewed, in terms of the above Special Rules and various interim directions given by the Division Bench of this Court. 8. Another grievance voiced by some members of the staff who are holding the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) is that the authorities are not re-designating the post as Reader, as contemplated by the Special Rules, dated 21st March, 1994. According to them, even though they have put in longer number of years of service after having acquired Ph.D. degree, they are still designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) and not re-designated as Reader. According to them, the note added to Lecturer (Selection Grade) item 4 in Section B posts in Colleges Class I Arts and Science Colleges stated: "After acquiring the qualification for the post of Reader, Lecturer (Selection Grade) shall be re-designated as Reader after a fresh assessment." If sufficient posts of Lecturer (Selection Grade) are redesignated as Reader, it is argued, Lecturer (Selection Grade), who are having the Ph.D. qualification, would have had their posts re-designated as Reader. That would have gone a long way to brighten their academic reputation and prospects. That would have gone a long way to brighten their academic reputation and prospects. Learned Government Pleader submitted before us that Government have taken a policy decision to create 95 posts of Readers by re-designating the posts of Lecturer (Selection Grade) after taking note of the requirements of the particular discipline. Since the Government have already taken a decision to re-designate 95 posts of Lecturer (Selection Grade) as Readers, the grievance voiced by some who have already acquired Ph.D. and have put in 8 years of service automatically stands redressed. 9. Since we have clarified the legal position governing the service as above, we direct the State and the Director of Collegiate Education to prepare a seniority list of the staff as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The seniority list must be of personnels in the categories of Lecturer, Lecturer (Senior Scale), Lecturer (Selection Grade), Reader, Principal and Principal (Special Grade). No further direction is called for. Writ Appeals and Original Petitions are disposed of as Indicated above. No separate order is called for in the Contempt of Court Case. It is also closed. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.