JUDGMENT MAJMUDAR, J. :—These two civil appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench on 23rd February, 1994. The High Court allowed two writ petitions against Vikram University and other contesting respondents. The contesting respondents after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court have challenged the said common judgment of the High Court in these civil appeals. 2. A common question is involved in these appeals, namely, whether the University teachers who have been given merit promotion as Readers or Professors, as the case may be, can claim seniority over directly recruited Readers and Professors on the ground of continuous officiation in service as Readers or Professors. The High Court has taken the view that they are not entitled to claim such seniority and has accordingly allowed the writ petitions moved by the directly appointed Readers and Professors. The appellants before us are the promotee Readers and Professors under the merit promotion scheme. Factual backdrop : 3. In order to appreciate the grievance voiced by the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant introductory facts leading to these proceedings. I. Civil Appeal No. 6001/94 : 4. This appeals is moved by the appellant who was earlier working as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Vikram University, Ujjain. The said University, its Registrar and the Kulpati are respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal. A merit promotion scheme was formulated by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) which has been joined as respondent No. 5 in this appeal pursuant to notice issued by this Court. The said scheme was promulgated in the year 1982. We will refer to the details of the said scheme in the latter part of this judgment. It is sufficient to say at this stage that the scheme was to provide opportunities for professional advancement of teachers working in the University and who merit academic recognition. Such teachers were to be given promotion on merits and not on the basis of seniority. 5. Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 29 June, 1985. Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the writ petitioner before the High Court in M.P. No 208/89 was appointed as Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recruit. 5. Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 29 June, 1985. Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the writ petitioner before the High Court in M.P. No 208/89 was appointed as Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recruit. He was so appointed on 13th March, 1986. He was confirmed after a period of two years probation. The respondent No. 1 University published seniority lists in the years November, 1986: November, 1987 and latest list in November 1988 whereunder the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 4. The appellant was placed at serial No.14 while respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 33. That was presumably because the appellants worked as a promotee Readers from 29-6-1985 while respondent No. 4 became Reader by direct recruitment later on 13th March, 1986. Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the said placement in the seniority list filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on 17th January, 1989. The respondent No. 4 prayed that the name of the appellant be deleted from the seniority list of Readers and also from the Board of Studies in Political Science and respondent No. 1 be directed to determine the seniority of Readers in accordance with Statute No. 16 and to give due seniority to the 4th respondent in the cadre of Readers. This petition was contested by the University as well as the appellant. As noted earlier the High Court accepted the case of respondent No. 4 writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition. II. Facts leading to Civil Appeal No. 6002/94 : 6. The respondent No. 4 in this appeal was the original writ petitioner before the High Court. He was appointed as Professor in Physics Department as direct recruit by respondent No. 1 Vikram University, Ujjain. His appointment was confirmed after a period of 2 years probation on 28th March, 1988. The present appellants who were respondents No. 4, 5, 8 and 9 in the said writ petition before the High Court and also original respondents 6 and 7 before the High Court who are respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal were all promoted under the merit promotion scheme formulated by the Commission as Professors in the School of Studies, Vikram University in various subjects. They were promoted on 12th March, 1986. They were promoted on 12th March, 1986. As they were promoted a day earlier than the date on which respondent No. 4 original writ petitioner respondent No. 4 was appointed as direct recruit Professor in Physics Department, the appellants and respondents 5 and 6 were shown as senior to original writ petitioner. The seniority lists published by respondent No. 1 University in the years 1987 and 1988 reflected this position. Even in the later seniority list of 1989 the appellants were shown at serial No. 16, 18, and 20 in the seniority list while the original writ petitioner was shown at serial No. 22. 7. That brought respondent No. 4 to the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1180/89. He challenged the seniority list on diverse grounds and prayed for the reliefs as under : - 1. That the names of the present appellants and respondents 5 and 6 be deleted from the seniority list of Professors and also appointment of appellant No. 1 be quashed. 2. That the respondent No. 1 be directed to determine the seniority of Professors in accordance with the Statue No. 16 and to give due seniority to respondent No. 4 (original writ petitioner ) in the cadre of Professors. 8. This petition was opposed by respondent No. 1 University and the contesting respondents. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Commission and the State of Madhya Pradesh were also joined in the writ petition. They also contested these proceedings. 9. As noted earlier the aforesaid writ petitions raised a common question. They were heard together by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. By its common judgment this writ petition was also allowed and that is how the appellants who were promotee Professors under the merit promotion scheme have filed this appeal. As both these appeals raised common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In Civil Appeal No. 6001/94 Professors working in various departments of University of Delhi have been joined as respondents 6 to 44 and 53 to 61 in the light of an interlocutory application which was granted. Similarly the Professors working in the different departments in the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi have also been joined as respondents 45 to 52 at their request. While respondents Nos. Similarly the Professors working in the different departments in the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi have also been joined as respondents 45 to 52 at their request. While respondents Nos. 62 to 90 are also permitted to be joined at their request in this appeal. They are Professors working in different Schools of studies and sciences in this city. 10. In Civil Appeal No 6002/94 are joined additional respondents 1 to 19 out of whom additional respondents 1 to 3 are Professors working in Devi Ahilya University, Indore while additional respondents 4 to 19 are working as Readers in Dr. H. S. Gaur University, Sagar and one additional respondent Dr. S. Sivaraman is a Professor in Dr. H. S. Gaur University , Sagar. All these additional respondents are permitted to be joined as respondents at their request pursuant to interlocutory application numbers 2,3, and 4 moved by them and granted by the order dated 9-9-1994. In addition to that there is I.A. No. 5/95 in Civil Appeal No. 6002/94 by which five applicants, working as Professors in various departments of Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi have also sought to be joined as respondents. The said application is treated to have been allowed and they will also be treated as additional respondents in this appeal. III. Statutory Provisions: 11. Before we deal with the main question posed for our consideration, it will be profitable to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions governing the proceedings and the impact of the merit promotion scheme promulgated by the Commission which has brought the appellants in the arena of contest. 12. Respondent No. 1 University is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. English translation thereof was furnished by learned counsel for the appellants. It is not in dispute that the various Universities functioning in the State of Madhya Pradesh are governed by the said Adhiniyam. Respondent No. 1 University is functioning at Ujjain, while Shivaji University is located at Gwalior. Sagar University to which some of the newly added respondents belong is situated at Sagar town of Madhya Pradesh. 13. We may at this stage usefully refer to the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam which have a bearing on the controversy before us. Clause (iv) of Section 4, defines an employee to mean any person appointed by the University and includes teachers and other staff of the University. 13. We may at this stage usefully refer to the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam which have a bearing on the controversy before us. Clause (iv) of Section 4, defines an employee to mean any person appointed by the University and includes teachers and other staff of the University. Clause (v) defines Executive Council to mean Executive Council of the University. Clause (ix) deals with Statutes, ordinances and regulations of the University, as the case, may be , enforced for the time being. Clause (xviii) defines University Grants Commission to mean the Commission established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Clause (xx) defines teachers of the University to mean Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as have been appointed for imparting education and conducting research with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or any College or any institution maintained by the University. Section 6 deals with powers of the University. Clause (15) of Section 6 empowers the University to institute Professorships, Readerships, Lecturerships and any other academic or teaching posts required by the University and to appoint persons to such posts in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Clause (31) of Section 6 deals with the power of the University to exercise control over the salaried officers, teachers and other employees of the University in accordance with the Statutes and the Ordinances. Section 19, deals with the authorities of the University which include amongst others Executive Council, Board of Studies, Academic Planning and Evaluation Board. Section 23, deals with the Executive Council. Its powers and duties are prescribed by Section 24. Clause (xx) of Section 24 deals with the power of the Executive Council to institute such Professorships, Readerships, Lecturerships or other teaching posts as may be proposed by the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board. It is subject to the proviso that no teaching post shall be instituted without the prior approval of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Clause (xxxii) of Section 24 deals with the power of the Executive Council, save as otherwise provided by this Act, or the Statutes, to appoint the officers other than the Kulapati, teachers and other employees of the University, to define their duties and the conditions of their service, and to provide for the filling of temporary vacancies in their posts. Clause (xxxii) of Section 24 deals with the power of the Executive Council, save as otherwise provided by this Act, or the Statutes, to appoint the officers other than the Kulapati, teachers and other employees of the University, to define their duties and the conditions of their service, and to provide for the filling of temporary vacancies in their posts. Clauses (xlii), (xliii) and (xliv) of Section 24 refer to the power of the Executive Council to entertain, adjudicate upon and if deemed fit to redress grievances of the employees and the students, to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by or under this Act and to exercise all powers of the University not otherwise provided for in this Act or the Statutes and all other powers which are requisite to give effect to the provisions of Act or the Statutes. Section 27, deals with various faculties of the University in which teaching can be imparted to the students. Section 28, deals with Board of Studies. Section 34, deals with Co-ordination Committee. Sub-section (iv) of Section 34 deals with powers and discharging of the functions by the Co-ordination Committee. Amongst others is found clause (v) which deals with consideration of matters of common interest to all or some of the Universities. Section 35, deals with Statutes. Clause (1) provides for framing statutes regarding qualifications of Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other teachers in affiliated colleges and recognised institutions. Clause (o) deals with the mode of determining seniority for the purpose of the Act. Section 37, deals with Ordinances and states that subject to the provisions of the Act the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the matters listed in the section. At item 15 is found the topic of the duties. qualifications and conditions of appointment including pay scales of the teachers paid by the University. 14. Chapter IX of the Act deals with appointment of teaching post in the University. Section 49 is relevant for our present purpose. It is useful to extract it in extenso. "CHAPTER IX ( APPOINTMENT TO TEACHING POSTS IN THE UNIVERSITY 49. qualifications and conditions of appointment including pay scales of the teachers paid by the University. 14. Chapter IX of the Act deals with appointment of teaching post in the University. Section 49 is relevant for our present purpose. It is useful to extract it in extenso. "CHAPTER IX ( APPOINTMENT TO TEACHING POSTS IN THE UNIVERSITY 49. (1) No person shall be appointed: (i) as a Professor, Reader, Lecturer; or (ii) to any other teaching post of the University paid by the University except on the recommendation of a committee of selection constituted in accordance with sub-section (2): Provided that if appointment to any of the teaching posts aforesaid is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot be delayed without detriment to the interest of the department or institution maintained by the University, the Executive Council may make such appointment without obtaining the recommendation of the committee of selection constituted under sub-section (2) but the person so appointed, shall not be retained on the same post for a period exceeding six months or appointed to another post in the service of the University except on the recommendation of the said committee of selection. Provided further that any such appointment purported to have been made under the preceding proviso prior to the 13th day of February, 1974 and continuing on such date shall continue till the 30th day of June, 1974 or the filling up of the post in accordance with sub-section (5), whichever is earlier. (2) The members of the committee of selection shall be : (i) the Kulapati - Chairman. (ia) omitted. (ii) omitted. (iii) one expert in the subject, not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever to be nominated by the Academic Council. (iv) Three experts, not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever nominated by the Kuladhipati. (v) the Chairman of the Ayog or a member of the Ayog nominated by him." (3) Omitted . (4) The committee shall investigate the merits of the various candidates, and shall recommend to the Executive Council the names, if any, of persons whom it considers suitable for the posts , arranged in order of merit: Provided that no recommendation shall be made unless at least three out of the experts nominated under clauses (iii) and(iv) of sub-section (2) are present in the meeting in which such recommendation is to be decided upon. (5) Out of the names so recommended under sub-section (4), the Executive Council shall appoint persons in order of merit." 15. Section 63 deals with classification of teachers. Sub-section (i) of Section 63 provides for Professors and Readers who are said to be teachers appointed by the Executive Council on the scales of pay not lower than that approved for Professors and Readers by the Commission and accepted by the State Government and when the scale of pay approved by the Commission is higher than that approved by the State Government in this behalf then on the scale of pay as approved by the State Government. Section 64 deals with terms of office of members of authority of the University. Sub-section (1) of Section 64, lays down that wherever in accordance with this Act, any person is to hold any office or to be a member of any authority by rotation according to seniority such seniority in the absence of any provisions to the contrary in the Act, shall be determined in accordance with the Statutes. 16. Provided that till the Statutes are made the seniority in a particular cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service in such a cadre and where the length of continuous service of two or more persons in the same cadre is the same, the Seniority shall be determined by seniority in age. 17. Apart from the aforesaid relevant act -- provisions, Statute 16 and Ordinance No. 4 have a direct bearing on the questions posed for our consideration. It is, therefore necessary to note them at this stage, Ordinance No. 4 issued as Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya First Ordinance, 1993 is framed under Section 37 of the Act. It deals with qualifications and conditions of appointment of the teachers in the University teaching department and schools of studies. It is not in dispute that the appellants and contesting respondents have the requisite qualification for being appointed as Readers or Professors as the case may be. 18. Statute 16 deals with seniority of teachers of the University. It is framed under Section 35 (o) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellants and contesting respondents have the requisite qualification for being appointed as Readers or Professors as the case may be. 18. Statute 16 deals with seniority of teachers of the University. It is framed under Section 35 (o) of the Act. Clause (ii) of Statute 16 days down that the seniority of Professors and Readers in college, Assistant Professors or Lectures shall be in accordance with the length of continuous service of such persons in the cadre concerned (Emphasis applied) taken together with length of continuous service in the cadre is equivalent or superior to the cadre concerned. Our attention was also invited to ordinance No. 4 as applicable to Jiwaji University, Gwalior. Clause 12 of the said ordinance provides that teachers shall be eligible for merit promotion scheme recommended by the Commission, New Delhi. The said clause with its sub-clauses deserves to be noted in extenso. It reads as under:- "12. The teachers of the University shall be eligible for the merit promotion scheme recommended by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. (i) Under this scheme, Lecturers and Readers who have completed 8 years of continuous services in their respective cadres as on 31st December or any date stipulated by the University of the Calendar year in which the applications are invited of which at least four years are in the institution, can be considered. Provided that not more than one third of the total permanent position of lecturers and readers within a University teaching Department may hold such merit promotions at higher level at any given time. While calculating the number of positions for the purpose of this scheme, wherever more than point five(0.5) fraction arises it may be rounded up as one (0.1). The readers holding such promotion posts would not count for determining the total posts in the cadre of readers for purpose of merit promotion to the post of Professors. (ii) The promotion given to lecturers and readers under this scheme would be personal to each individual and in the event of his/her retirement on leaving the University, the post vacated would be the one from which he/she was promoted. (iii) The excess work load of the teacher given merit promotion will be suitably adjusted. (iv) No advance increment shall be admissible to a teacher on promotion under this scheme. (iii) The excess work load of the teacher given merit promotion will be suitably adjusted. (iv) No advance increment shall be admissible to a teacher on promotion under this scheme. The pay of the teacher promoted shall, however, be fixed in accordance with the M. P. Govt. Rules. (v) The following procedure shall be adopted for the merit promotion of Lecturers and Readers under this scheme. (a) The Registrar will issue a notice ordinarily in the month of November every year. (b) The teachers desirous to be considered for merit promotion should present their application in hexapulate on prescribed form along with three sets of their Research papers, Publications, Books, Reviews, Curriculum Development, Teaching Aids, Innovation of teaching methods, equipments developed, etc. through their Heads of the Department to the office of the Registrar latest by 31st December of the year the applications are called for. (c)The Kulpati shall refer the applications together with the enclosures to the two experts and obtain evaluation reports, which shall be kept confidential and placed before the committee of selection constituted u/S. 49 of Adhiniyam. (d) The committee of selection constituted under Section 49 of the Adhiniyam shall make the recommendations after taking into consideration the evaluation reports of the experts obtained by the Kulapati. The final appointment shall be made by the Executive Council as per provisions of Section 49 of the Adhiniyam. (e) The teachers who have been considered and not selected for merit promotion in the initial presentation, shall be allowed to submit his/her work only after a lapse of two years." 19. Our attention was also invited to the principles for determining seniority of teachers as laid down by Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi . Principle No. 1 as laid down in the resolution of the said University reads as under:- "Subject to the provisions contained in the following clauses, the seniority of teachers appointed under Statute 27 or 28 or promoted under the merit promotion scheme shall be determined from the date of their appointment (joining) or promotion to the post : (i) Provided that if the date of appointment, promotion of two or more teachers is the same, their seniority shall be determined. (a) in the case of Assistant Professors, on the basis of the order of merit recommended by the selection committee; and (b) in the case of Professors and Associate Professors, on the basis of their length of continuous service in the University in the lower post of Associate Professors or Assistant Professors, as the case may be; (ii) Provided further that if both the date, of appointment/promotion and the length of service in the lower post happen to be the same the seniority in age shall be given priority. 20. Now is time for us to refer to the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 under which the Commission respondent in both these appeals is constituted. The Commission Act is enacted to make provisions for the co-ordination and determination of standards in universities. The Commission is established under Section 4 of the Act. As per Section 12, it is the General duty of the Commission to take in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act. The Commission may inquire into the financial needs of Universities and allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Commission, grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act for the maintenance and development of such Universities or for any other general or specified purpose. 21. In exercise of its powers under the Act the Commission by its communication dated 23rd November, 1982 recommended implementation of merit promotion scheme for University appointed teachers in the Universities and by a later communication dated 31st December, 1982 recommended a similar scheme for college appointed teachers. The Commission agreed to grant Rs. 600 per annum for each person promoted in accordance with the guidelines circulated with the said communication. This contribution was to be made by the Commission for the remaining period of the Sixth Five Year Plan after which the expenditure involved under the scheme was to be undertaken as committed expenditure by the University or the College concerned from its own resource or with the assistance of grants-in-aid from the State as the case may be. This contribution was to be made by the Commission for the remaining period of the Sixth Five Year Plan after which the expenditure involved under the scheme was to be undertaken as committed expenditure by the University or the College concerned from its own resource or with the assistance of grants-in-aid from the State as the case may be. The guidelines accompanying said communications referred in their preamble to the role of teachers as being very crucial in the maintenance of academic standards and discipline in educational institutions. That great responsibility lies on the teacher to ensure that appropriate academic atmosphere is maintained in the institution and all academic work is carried out efficiently and with devotion as a full time employee of the institution. With a view to providing reasonable opportunities to teachers for career advancement and recognition the merit promotion scheme was suggested. The basic objective of the merit promotion scheme were to be as under : 1. The basic objectives of the scheme should be (1) to recognize outstanding work done by the university teachers in the areas of teaching and research; (2) subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subject areas concerned and (3) to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition, on a competitive basis. The Scheme therefore may be appropriately named as "Merit Promotion Scheme for University Teachers." This would be in the nature of a "flexible complementing scheme" Wherein no additional posts are created, and the existing persons on the basis of critical assessment are promoted to the next higher level and the position is held by such incumbents as personal to them, and no resultant vacancy is required to be filled. Such a Scheme would considerably encourage the teachers to engage in advanced teaching and research and make distinct contributions which would merit recognition and promotion. 22. For implementing the said scheme a method was suggested to the effect that the teachers in the University Departments engaged in advanced teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition were to be considered for merit promotion in the first instance after completing 8 years of service in the respective cadre of which at least four years should be in the institution where he or she is being considered for such assessment and merit promotion . Any teacher who was considered and not selected for merit promotion in the initial presentation could submit his work after the lapse of two years. The work of the concerned teacher including research publication, book review, curriculum development, teaching aids, etc. was to be presented by individual to two referees in the subject discipline concerned. Referees were to be selected by a panel of names set up according to the procedure prescribed by the University for Selection Committee. Merit promotion be given by appointing authority to a teacher only on recommendation of the Selection Committee duly constituted after it has given due consideration to the opinion of the referees. There should be at least two outside experts on the Selection Committee in the case of promotion to readers and outside experts for promotion to professors in these cases. As per clause (f) of the method of implementation the post of reader given to a Lecturer or the position of a professor given to a Reader through merit promotion would be personal to the incumbent concerned and the main criteria for promotion under the scheme would be the merit of the work and not the seniority of the teachers. As per guideline No. (3) not more than 1/3rd of the number of total permanent position of lecturers or readers within a department may hold such merit promotions at next higher level at any given time. 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. As per guideline No. 6 while making selections for such promotions it is not expected that the Selection Committee would recommend any advance increment nor it is expected that any rules for pay fixation on promotion/selection to higher posts are applied to provide for increment. Only marginal adjustment would be required to be made within the new scale, nearest to the salary already drawn by the promotee. 23. The said merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission is said to have been accepted by all the statutory universities functioning in the country. So far as respondent No. 1 University is concerned Govt. Only marginal adjustment would be required to be made within the new scale, nearest to the salary already drawn by the promotee. 23. The said merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission is said to have been accepted by all the statutory universities functioning in the country. So far as respondent No. 1 University is concerned Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Deptt, of Higher Education by order dated 13th March, 1984 sanctioned implementation of the merit promotion scheme for university teachers referred to in the letter of 23rd November, 1982 of the Commission, New Delhi from academic session 1983-84. It was mentioned therein that expenditure incurred on this scheme will be borne by the university up to 31st March, 1985. Commitment was given by the State that the State Govt. will incur the expenditure on the scheme afterwards from 1st April, 1985. The expenditure on the scheme from 1st April, 1985 would be treated as maintenance grant. It was further directed that in order to implement the scheme from academic session 1983-84 the university should take appropriate steps according to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. University should see to it that the rules should be framed and ensure uniformity in all the universities of Madhya Pradesh accordingly adopted the said merit promotion scheme for its teachers. Thereafter it appears that the concerned universities entertained doubts regarding the fixation of inter se seniority between promotee readers and professors under the scheme and directly recruited professors and readers under the statutory provisions of the Act constituting such universities. In that connection the Secretary to the Commission by its letter dated 27th April, 1984 addressed to all Vice Chancellors of Universities conveyed the decision of the Commission at its meeting held on 29th March, 1984 to the effect that the commission felt that the question of seniority of teachers promoted under the merit promotion scheme vis-a-vis teachers appointed against regular recruitment be decided by the University/institution concerned. It appears that thereafter this question was sought to be resolved at the level of the concerned universities. So far as Universities situated in Madhya Pradesh are concerned, by communication of the Chancellor, i.e., Governor of Madhya Pradesh dated 29th June, 1987 addressed to the Vice Chancellor. Avtesh Pratap Singh University, Riwa it was informed that seniority of one Dr. It appears that thereafter this question was sought to be resolved at the level of the concerned universities. So far as Universities situated in Madhya Pradesh are concerned, by communication of the Chancellor, i.e., Governor of Madhya Pradesh dated 29th June, 1987 addressed to the Vice Chancellor. Avtesh Pratap Singh University, Riwa it was informed that seniority of one Dr. Agrawal who was a merit promotee should be fixed above the seniority of Dr. R.L. Singh who was later recruited as Professor. So far as respondent No. 1 university is concerned it treated promotee readers and professors on par with directly recruited professors and readers and fixed their inter se seniority on the basis of continuous officiation of the concerned incumbent in the post. Even the Co-ordination Committee for the University endorsed that view. Our attention was also invited to Ordinance No. 4 promulgated by Jiwaji University, Gwalior. In that ordinance as noted earlier it is clearly provided that the teachers of the university should be eligible for merit promotion scheme recommended by the Commission, New Delhi. The resolution dated 26th June, 1988 passed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University was also pressed into service. The said resolution stated that subject to the provisions containing the seniority of teachers appointed under statute 27 or 28 are promulgated shall be determined from the date of their appointment of joining or promotion to the post. Statute 27 referred to the direct recruitment. While statute 28 referred to special mode of appointment by Executive Council which may invite a person of high academic excellence to accept the post of a Professor or Reader in the university. So far as Delhi University is concerned learned counsel appearing for the Professors working in the Delhi University who have been joined as respondents on their impleading applications submitted that the statute 6(2) framed under the Delhi University Act, 1922 authorised the Executive Council to appoint from time to time such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as may be necessary on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. That as per Ordinance 11, clause 8(1) all post of teachers have to be filled up after advertisement by open recruitment subject to the proviso that University may appoint Professors, Readers under the merit promotion scheme of 1983 as accepted by the Executive Council in accordance with the eligibility conditions and in the manner prescribed in this scheme. As per clause (ii) of ordinance 11 seniority of teacher in a particular discipline etc. etc shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down therein. We were also taken to the minutes of the Executive Council of Delhi University dated 24th April, 1983 wherein a decision was rendered regarding selection of university teachers under the merit promotion scheme to the effect that the composition of the Screening / Evaluation Committee for promotion of Lecturers to the post of Readers and for promotion of Readers to the post of Professors in the University department shall be the same as that of the statutory Selection Committee for recruitment of teachers to such posts. Our attention was also invited to the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the Delhi University dated 29th Dec. 1990 wherein at item No. 141 was the resolution to the effect that the recommendation of the Committee constituted by Vice Chancellor regarding determination of seniority of teachers permitted under merit promotion scheme vis-a-vis direct recruit be accepted as set out in Appendix-1. Appendix-I states that the committee decided that persons appointed as Professors or Readers have to be treated alike in the matter of seniority and cannot be placed in two different compartments merely because two different pay scales were applicable to these cadres. The committee concluded that seniority in all these cases should be determined by the date of appointment or promotion. 24. It therefore appears that after the merit promotion scheme of 1982 was adopted by all the statutory universities in the country and when the Commission left the question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits Professors and Readers to be determined by the concerned university, respondent No. 1 university and other universities seem to have taken the view that all these incumbents be treated at par and their inter se seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous officiation in the concerned post. 25. 25. The scheme of merit promotion scheme of 1982 underwent a sea change by the year 1987. The Central Govt. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt, of Education by its communication dated 17th June, 1987 to the Secretary, of the Commission mission informed that the Govt. of India had after taking into consideration the recommendation of the Commission decided to revise the scales of pay of the teachers in Central Universities. The revision of pay of teachers was to be effective from 1st January, 1986. A similar communication was addressed to the Education Secretaries of all States regarding revision of pay scales of teachers in universities for maintenance of standards in higher education. It was informed that the Central Govt. had revised the pay scales of teachers in universities and colleges in order to attract talented teachers. A career advancement scheme was introduced and made applicable to the teachers in the universities and affiliated colleges with effect from 1st January, 1986. As per the annexure I attached to the aforesaid communication dated 17th June, 1987 the revised scale of pay available to a Reader was Rs. 3700-125-4700-160-5300 while the pay scale of Professor was to be Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-7300. It was also provided therein that the existing teachers in Universities and Colleges where the merit promotion scheme formulated by the Commission, or any other similar scheme were in operation would have an option to continue to be governed by the provisions of these schemes provided that they exercise that option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme, they would also be entitled to the designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in these schemes, but the scales of pay would be as follows :- Readers/Lectures (Selection Grade) Rs. 3000-5000 Professor Rs. 4500 - 5700. It thus became clear that with effect from 1-1-1986 because of the career advancement scheme introduced by the Central Govt. 3000-5000 Professor Rs. 4500 - 5700. It thus became clear that with effect from 1-1-1986 because of the career advancement scheme introduced by the Central Govt. the erstwhile merit promotion scheme providing for uniform pay scale then available to directly recruited Readers and Professors as well as the merit promoted Professors and Teachers was given a go-by and under the career advancement scheme uniform revised pay scales were provided for Readers and Professors with a rider that those existing teachers in Universities and Colleges who gave in writing to be governed by the merit promotion scheme even thereafter would get the benefit of that scheme for being promoted to the post of Professors and Readers, as the case may be, but their pay scales would be lower as compared to the pay scales of directly recruited Professors and Reader. In other words. If after 17-6-1987 when the career advancement scheme replaced the earlier merit promotion scheme, any existing Lecturer or Reader wanted to take the benefit of merit promotion scheme thereafter and it he got promoted accordingly to the post of reader or Professor as the case may be his pay scale on the promotional post of Reader or Professor as the case may be his pay scale on the promotional post of reader would be Rs. 3000-5000 as compared to the pay scale of Rs. 3700(5300 available to a directly recruited Reader and so far as merit promoted Professor was concerned his pay scale would be lower, namely Rs. 4500-5700 as compared to the higher pay scale available to a directly recruited Professor, i.e. Rs. 4500-7300. By a communication dated 6th January, 1989 addressed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt. of Education addressed to all Registrars of State Universities a clarification was issued regarding the merit promotion scheme. It was informed that the Govt. of India had decided that existing teachers in universities and colleges where the merit promotion scheme formulated by the Commission in 1983 or any other similar scheme are in operation will have an option to continue to be governed by the provision of these schemes provided that they exercise the option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme. They will also be entitled to the designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in these schemes, but the scales of pay will be as follows : - i) Lecturer - Rs. 2200 - 4000 ii) Reader - Rs. 3000 - 5000 iii) Professor - Rs. 4500 - 5700 26. In the light of the aforesaid relevant statutory provisions and factual data we may now turn to the consideration of rival contentions canvassed by the learned Advocates representing the contesting parties. IV. Rival contentions : 27. Mr. Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in civil appeal No. 6001/94 submitted that as per statute 16 of the first respondent university, the seniority of college Professor. Reader, etc. shall be determined in accordance with the length of continuous service of such person in the cadre concerned. That cadre is not defined by the Act or the rules. That in law even a temporary addition to the cadre during the time a promotee Lecturer works as a Reader has to be considered to be an addition to the cadre of Reader. That such merit promotion of a Lecturer to the post of a Reader on pure merits and competition and through a Selection Committee which is the same as the Selection Committee for directly recruited Readers under Section 49 of the Act cannot be said to be an ad hoc or stop-gap promotion. It is a regular promotion on pure merits and therefore the cadre of Reader can be said to have been enlarged for taking in its fold such promotee Readers. Once that conclusion is reached it becomes obvious that for deciding inter se seniority of such promotee Readers and directly recruited Readers there cannot be any discrimination. They all do the same work, they are selected on merits by the same committee though the sources of recruitment may be different. But their birth marks would vanish the moment they formed part and parcel of the same cadre of Readers. Hence, continuous officiation of the concerned incumbents in the Readers posts would be the only relevant yardstick for deciding the inter se seniority of promotee vis-a-vis directly recruited Readers. Mr. Bobde submitted that the High Court in the impugned judgment had patently erred in holding that the said promotee Reader were not part of the cadre of Readers. Hence, continuous officiation of the concerned incumbents in the Readers posts would be the only relevant yardstick for deciding the inter se seniority of promotee vis-a-vis directly recruited Readers. Mr. Bobde submitted that the High Court in the impugned judgment had patently erred in holding that the said promotee Reader were not part of the cadre of Readers. That even though the promotion may be personal to the incumbent, so long as he is in service he remains entitled to occupy the promotional post and to that extent there is a net addition to the cadre of Readers.