PALOK BASU, J. This writ petition has been directed against the Chancel lors decision, dated 30-11-1994 whereby the order of the Executive Council of Gorakhpur University, dated 14-5-1994 concurring with the Seniority Com mittees decision, dated 23-1-1994 has been upheld and the respondent No. 5 Dr. J. P. Tripathi has been held to be senior to the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose. 2. This litigation has been on for quite some time past now. When this writ petition was moved, the caveator-counsel was heard in opposition and all learned counsel for the parties prayed for expeditious disposal of this writ petition and, therefore, it is being finally decided after exchange of affidavits by all concerned parties. Dr. R. G. Padia on behalf of the petitioner, Sri B. S. Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 5, Dr, J. P. Tripathi have been heard at considerable length, Sri S. N. Upadhyaya, assisted by Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya has been heard on behalf of the Chancellor and Gorakhpur University. Sri D. R. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel has espoused the cause of the State. Along with hearing the learned counsel, all the documents filed along with the petitions, counter-affidavits, rejoinder affidavits and supplementary affidavits have been thoroughly examined. 3. Though apparently the question arising for consideration is simple, i. e. , who amongst the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose and respondent No. 5, Dr. J. P. Tripathi has to be recognised as Senior in the English Department in Gorakhpur University, the respective representations and petitions have render ed the whole litigation a bulky one. Therefore, some facts have to be mentioned to dispose of all the points argued. It may, however, be stated that the latest decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Krishna Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others, reported in JT 1995 (1) SC page 471, would nullify much of the venom spitted out by either side because the dictum in the aforesaid judgment of the Honble apex Court practically ends the controversy. 4. There is no doubt that the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose was appointed as Lecturer in English Department in the University of Gorakhpur on 11-3-1971. It is said that prior to his entering this service in University ho worked as Lecturer in K, N. Government College, Gyanpur, Varanasi from 2-1-1965 to 10-3-1971. 4. There is no doubt that the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose was appointed as Lecturer in English Department in the University of Gorakhpur on 11-3-1971. It is said that prior to his entering this service in University ho worked as Lecturer in K, N. Government College, Gyanpur, Varanasi from 2-1-1965 to 10-3-1971. It is also not disputed that a Selection Committee was constituted which met for considering appointment to the post of Reader and that the petitioner, Dr. S. C. Bose was promoted and appointed as Reader on 24- 2-1985. 5. Likewise, it is also permitted that Dr. J. P. Tripathi was appointed as a Lecturer in English in Gorakhpur University 00 15-1-1974. He too pre viously worked as Lecturer in D. A. V. P. G. College Azamgarh from 16- 7-1960 to 14-1-1974. He was, however, granted promotion to the post of Reader on 24-2-1985, not as a result of direct open selection by the Selection Committee, but under the "personal Promotion Scheme,". It is again not in dispute that under the First Statutes, the qualifications concerning personal promotions came to be passed and promulgated with effect from 25-2-1985 which was made possible by adding Section 31-A in the State Universities Act. 6. Initially, the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University published a Seniority List on 1-7-1981. In that list the petitioner was shown at No. 35. The respondent No. 5 namely. Dr. J. P. Tripathi was thirteen places lower in the seniority having been shown at serial No. 48. This seniority list was objected to by some teachers including perhaps respondent No. 5 Dr. J. P. Tripathi. In due course, ultimately those objections came to be decided by a seniority committee, vide its decision, dated 30-6-1993 which held that Dr. J. P. Tripathi was senior to Dr. S. C. Bose. This decision, however, proceeded to determine the seniority in the Readers Cadre of both those contestants though initially the controversy arose as to the respective seniority of these two contestants in the Lecturers Cadre. J. P. Tripathi was senior to Dr. S. C. Bose. This decision, however, proceeded to determine the seniority in the Readers Cadre of both those contestants though initially the controversy arose as to the respective seniority of these two contestants in the Lecturers Cadre. The said committee held that since in the mean time the promotion to the Readers Cadre had taken place and date on which the petitioner was selected and promoted as a result of the Selection Committees decision was the same as the date on which "personal Promo tion" was granted to the respondent No. 5, it proceeded to take note of what ever service the two contestants had put in as Lucturer prior to their appoint ment in the Gorakhpur University. 7. It may be noted here that apart from other criticisms, the principal objection of the petitioner to the said list was that since the First Statutes came much after the initial appointment of these two candidates, the petitioners appointment in Gorakhpur University being three years prior to that of res pondent No. 5, the said obvious seniority of the petitioner cannot be affected retrospectively by applying some provisions in the First Statutes and the seniority list should be quashed and the initial seniority list should be restored. Nonetheless, the seniority committee upheld the subsequent list, vide its deci sion, dated 30-6-1993. This was challenged by the petitioner through writ petition in this Court but success did not come by his way. He went in appeal through S. L. P. No. 9574 of 1993 |and the relevant portion of the Supreme Courts decision disposing of the S L. P. may be usefully quoted here :- "it is open to the appellant to tile a representation before the Commit tee with all his records in support of his claims before the Com mittee within a period of tour weeks from today. It is also open to the first respondent to submit his documents which he has already submitted, if taken back. The committee shall also give opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the first respondent, if so desired and then decide the matter within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till then the status quo existing as on the date of the order of the High Court, namely, 3-6-1993 should remain. The appeal is allowed in the terms as indicated above. No costs. " 8. Till then the status quo existing as on the date of the order of the High Court, namely, 3-6-1993 should remain. The appeal is allowed in the terms as indicated above. No costs. " 8. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Hon We Supreme Court, the Vice- Chancellor passed an order, dated 27-12-1993 holding that the charge of Head of the Department of English was with the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose and he was, therefore, directed to act as Head of the Department of English subject to the decision of the seniority committee. This order has been filed as Annexure to the writ petition. The matter was sent to the Seniority Committee for fresh decision in accordance with the Supreme Courts directions. Ultimately on 23-1-1994 the Seniority Committee considered the matter of inter se seniority in pursuance of the directions of the Honble Supreme Court. The last two paragraphs of this order may be quoted here for ready reference : "dr. J. P. Tripathi served continuously in substantive capacity as Lecturer from July 16, 1960 to 23-2-1985 i. e. from July 16, 1960 to January 14,1974 in D. A. V. Post. Graduate College, Azamgarh, arid from January 15, 1974 to February 23, 1985 ii the Univer sity of Gorakhpur, On the other hand Dr. Bose served as Lecturer only from 2-1-1965 to 23-2-1985, i. e. from 2-1-1965 to 10-3-1971 in the K. N. Government College, Gyanpur and from 11-3-1971 to 23-2-1985 in the University of Gorakhpur. Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Honble High Court, already quoted, and in accordance with the Statutes, the period of substantive service as Lecturer of Dr. J. P. Tripathi being longer than that of Dr. S. C. Bose, the senio rity committee declares Dr. J. P. Tripathi senior to Dr. S. C. Boso as Reader. " This order was sought to be challenged by the petitioner through another writ petition No. 3548 of 1994 but it was held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. J. P. Tripathi being longer than that of Dr. S. C. Bose, the senio rity committee declares Dr. J. P. Tripathi senior to Dr. S. C. Boso as Reader. " This order was sought to be challenged by the petitioner through another writ petition No. 3548 of 1994 but it was held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. It appears that then the petitioner filed an appeal before the Execu tive Council and his appeal was dismissed by the Executive Council, vide its decision, dated 14-5-1994, the petitioner again wanted intervention through this court but it was refused on the ground that the petitioner had yet an alternative remedy through Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. Lastly, therefore, the petitioner has filed a representation on 16-9-1994 which having gone against him, he has come up through the present writ petition. 9, It may be mentioned here that just as the selection committee and just as the Seniority Committee and the Executive Council, the Chancellor also placed reliance on the following observation of a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 732151/d, dated 21-1-1993 which paragraph is quoted below for ready reference because it has also been quoted in the Chan cellors order: "the process of selection for appointment of professor by direct ap pointment as well as by personal promotion is the same and the eligibility condition for selection with regard to experience is also same. There is no substantial difference in the academic qualifi cation also. The person who is promoted under the personal pro motion scheme is appointed in his own right after satisfying the requisite conditions. He has a right to hold the post in the cadre of Professor to which he is promoted. He cannot; be deprived of the right to hold the post except when he is dismissed or removed or his services are terminated in accordance with law or he attains the age of superannuation. It is only when he ceases to occupy the post of Professor that it shall stand abolished. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision under which he may be reverted to the post of Reader in any contingency. It is only when he ceases to occupy the post of Professor that it shall stand abolished. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision under which he may be reverted to the post of Reader in any contingency. We ate, there fore, of opinion that after appointment to the post of Professor by way of personal promotion it is that post and not the post of Reader which in the substantive post of the teacher concerned. This also applies mutatis mutandis to the case of Readers. " On the aforesaid logic Chancellor endorsed the view of the two Committees below that Dr. J. P. Tripathi was senior to the petitioner Dr. S. C. Bose. 10. It may be mentioned here that Section 31 A of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 came to be enacted and was brought in force with effect from 10-10-1984 by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1985. Thin section is quoted below for ready reference : "31-A. Personal promotion to Teachers of University : (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained m any other provision of this Act a Lecturer or Reader in the University substantively appointed under Section 31. who has put in such length of service and possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed may be given personal promotion res pectively to the post of Reader or Professor. (2) Such personal promotion shall be given on the recommenda tion of the selection committee constituted under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 31 in such manner and subject to such conditions as may prescribed. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall effect the posts of the teachers of the University to be filled by direct appointment in accordance with the provisions of Section 31. " 11. Having thus examined the relevant law under which personal pro motion was created as a category of promotion apart from direct selection through selection committee it will now be relevant to note the relevant first statute which talks of principles which will be adhered to while determining the inter se seniority. The first statute No. 18. 05 which deals with this matter may be quoted for ready reference : "18. 05. The first statute No. 18. 05 which deals with this matter may be quoted for ready reference : "18. 05. The following rules shall be followed in determining the seniority of teachers of the University : (a) A Professor shall be deemed senior to every Reader and a Readier shall be deemed senior to every Lecturer. (b) In the same cadre seniority of a teacher shall be determined according to the length of his continuous service in a sub stantive capacity in such cadre : Provided that where more than one appointments to posts in a cadre have been made at the same time and an order of pre ference or merit was indicated by selection committee or by the Executive Council as the case may be the seniority of the persons so appointed shall be governed by the order so indicated. . (c) When any teacher holding substantive post in any University (other than the University of Gorakhpur) or in any consti tuent college or in any institute 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. (d) When any teacher holding substantive post in any college affiliated to or associated with any University is appointed (whether before or after the commencement of these statute) as a lecturer in the University, then one-half of the period of substantive service rendered by such teacher in such college shall be added to his length of service. (c) Service against an administrative appointment in any Univer sity or institution shall not count for the purposes of seniority Explanation.-In this Chapter the expression administrative ap pointment means an appointment made under sub-section (6) of Section 13. (f) Continuous service in a temporary post to which a teacher is appointed after reference to a Selection Committee, if follow ed by his appointment in a substantive capacity to that post under Section 31 (3) (b) shall count towards seniority. " 12, Having thus examined the relevant provisions in the First Statute permitting certain methods of calculation for determining the seniority, it may be mentioned that clause (a) of first statute No. 18. " 12, Having thus examined the relevant provisions in the First Statute permitting certain methods of calculation for determining the seniority, it may be mentioned that clause (a) of first statute No. 18. 05 as quoted above laps down that "a professor shall be deemed senior to every Reader, and a Reader shall be deemed senior to every Lecturer". This deeming clause therefore, has per force to be applied wherever it is attracted. It has already been noted in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that the Seniority Committee as well as the Executive Council had taken due note of the face that the selection for the post of Reader had already been done and the ques tion of seniority in the Readership was the issue to be decided on the relevant date. In other words, if any, dispute continued in these terms as it may have existed during the tenure of the two contestants as Lecturer, the same may have been made the basis for determining inter se seniority even as a Reader. But if by operation of law or facts the position between these two contestants undergoes a change after their appointment as Reader whether by personal promotion so far as respondent No. 5 is concerned or by direct promotion through Selection Committee so far as the petitioner is concerned that posi tion shall have to govern proceedings thereafter. 13. The aforesaid discussion immediately takes us to the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision of Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : , "5. In a view of sub-section (1) of Section 31-A personal promotion as envisaged by Section 31-A could be given only after the length of service and the qualifications were prescribed. The word prescribed is defined in Section 2 (14) of the Act to mean prescribed by the Statutes. Tie necessary amendment to give effect to the scheme of personal promotion as envisaged by Sec tion 31-A of the Act was made in the statutes of the University by notification, dated February 21, 1985 whereby Statute 11. 12-B was introduced and the categories of the University who would be eligible for the personal promotion to the post of Readers and Professors and the mode of such promotion were prescribed. "12. 12-B was introduced and the categories of the University who would be eligible for the personal promotion to the post of Readers and Professors and the mode of such promotion were prescribed. "12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant was appointed on the post of professor in physics on November 9, 1984 the seniority should be regulated by the provisions contained in the statutes as they existed on the said date and that amendments which were made in the Statutes by notification, dated February 21, 1985 would have no application in the matter of determination of his seniority. Under clause (b) Statute 18. 05 as it stood on November 9, 1984, when the appel lant joined as Professor in physics, appellant, who was holding the selection post of Professor in physics faculty, was senior to res pondents Nos. 4 and 5 who were promoter under the Personal Promotion Scheme. In this connection, the learned counsel has urged that although Section 31-A, which provides for personal promotion, was introduced in the Act with effect from October 10, 1984, but the said provision could be given effect to only after the length of service as well as the qualifications were prescribed in the Statutes and that this was done only by the amendments that were introduced on the Statutes by notification, dated February 21, 1985 and, therefore, personal promotion of respon dents Nos. 4 and 5 could have legal effect only from the date of such amendment, in the Statutes and that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 should be treated to have been promoted under personal promo tion scheme on the grade of Professor in physics with effect from February 21, 1985. Since the appellant joined as Professor in physics on November 9, 1934, he should be treated as senior to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. "13. Shri Sanyal, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has however, urged that since the validity of ap pointments of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with effect from Novem ber 1984 has not been assailed by the appellant, he should not be permitted to raise this question at this stage. It is no doubt true that the validity of the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has however, urged that since the validity of ap pointments of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with effect from Novem ber 1984 has not been assailed by the appellant, he should not be permitted to raise this question at this stage. It is no doubt true that the validity of the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has not been assailed by the appellant but ail that he is pointing out is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 31-A of the Act the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under the Personal Promotion Scheme could be made only after the length of service and qualifications were prescribed by the Statutes and provisions in this regard were made in the Statutes only on February 21,1985. In other words, what the appellant is saying is that the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the grade of Professor can be regard ed to have been made legally only with effect; from February 21, 1985 This does not involve a challenge to the validity of their promotion but only raises the question about the date from which ft can be given effect to in law. We are of the opinion that in view of the provisions contained in Section 31-A and Section 2 (14) of the Act there is no escape from the conclusion that respon dent Nos. 4 and5 could not be given promotion under the personal promotion scheme till the necessary provisions prescribing the length of service and the qualifications for it such promotion were made in the Statutes and since this was done by notification, dated February 21, 1985, promotion under the personal promotion scheme could not be made prior to February 21, 1985. The Execu tive Council in its Resolution No. 198, dated November 8, 1984 had accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee for promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis of Government orders, dated December 12, 1983 and February 25, 1984. At that time Section 21 of the Act provided for appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and did not envisage promotion from a lower teaching post to a higher teaching post. The orders of the Government aforementioned could not be given effect till necessary amendment was made in the Act making provision for personal promotion. At that time Section 21 of the Act provided for appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and did not envisage promotion from a lower teaching post to a higher teaching post. The orders of the Government aforementioned could not be given effect till necessary amendment was made in the Act making provision for personal promotion. This was done by introducing Section 31-A bv U P Act No. 9 of 1985 with effect from October 10, 1984. But Section 31-A could be given effect only after the necessary provision was made in the Statutes prescribing the length of service and the qualification!, for personal promotion. This was done by the notification dated February 21, 1985. The promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the grade of Professor under the per sonal promotion scheme could, therefore, not be made prior to February 21, 1985. The inter se seniority of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has to be determined on that basis. " F (Emphasis supplied) 14. It may be stated here that it is not disputed that the relevant amendments in the First Statutes in so far it made way for personal promo tions came to be passed and gazetted on 25-2-1985. Therefore so far as any Candida who claims any right as having been appointed a Reader through this method of personal promotion cannot claim any benefit prior to 25-2-1985. This conclusion is inescapable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Bal Krisna Agrawal (supra ). It will, therefore, follow that the view of the Seniority Committee as well as that of the Executive Council (relying upon Lucknow Bench (judgment) holding that the petitioner and the respondent No 5 were appointed on the same day to the cadre of Readers is erroneous and in the teeth of the observations of the Supreme Court. Even if the appointment letters to these two contestants may bear the same date, the respondent No. 5 cannot claim the benefits of being a Reader prior to 25-2-1985. It will therefore, follow that the petitioner stands appointed on 24-2-1985 whereas Respondent No. 5 stands appointed on 25-2-1985 as a Reader. Even if the appointment letters to these two contestants may bear the same date, the respondent No. 5 cannot claim the benefits of being a Reader prior to 25-2-1985. It will therefore, follow that the petitioner stands appointed on 24-2-1985 whereas Respondent No. 5 stands appointed on 25-2-1985 as a Reader. 15 It may be mentioned here that Sri Pandey placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1782 to plead and argue that the aforesaid judgment of he Supreme Court Dr. Bal Krishna Agrawal should be treated as a judgment in pursonam and not a judgment in rem and, therefore it should be hold that the present litigation is not covered by the aforesaid decision. Giving our best of consideration to the aforesaid argument it is not possible to accept the same because the decision of Honble Supreme Court applies on the facts of this case with full force. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion the petitioner shall have to be held senior to respondent No, 5 and he is entitled to be declared as such. 17. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugn ed order, dated 30-11-1994 upholding the order 01 the Executive Council dated 14-5-1994 thereby approving the decision of the Seniority Committee, dated 23-1-1994 are quashed. The petitioner is declared as appointed 00 24-2- 1985 to the post of Reader in the department of English through direct Selection by Selection Committee whereas respondent No. 5 is declared to have been pro moted to the post of Reader under the personal promotion scheme on 25-2-1985. The parties will, however, bear their on costs. Petition allowed. .