JUDGMENT 1. - The matter was listed for orders on the stay petition. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was finally heard. 2. Petitioner Shanti Lal Dave was appointed as Assistant Librarian on ad hoc basis on 9.6.1982. He was thereafter selected and appointed on the regular basis vide order dated 28.4.1983. By the same order the respondent No. 2 Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal was also appointed as Assistant Librarian. In the order of merit the petitioner stood at S. No. 1 and Shri Agarwal stood at S.No. 2. The petitioner on completion of 8 years of service got senior scale in June, 1990 and the respondent No. 2 Shri Agarwal also got the senior scale in 1991 on his completing 8 years of service. The Board of Management of the University passed resolution on 31.10.1991 resolving that Career Advancement Scheme for Assistant Librarians be implemented on the lines of Rajasthan University. The Scheme is Annexure P3. It has been provided in the Career Advancement Scheme that Assistant Librarians having certain qualification on the experience would be entitled to promotion to the post of Dy. Librarian, carrying pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 or get selection scale of Rs. 3700-5700. 3. The petitioner's case is that the University respondent No. 1 has decided to hold interviews for the grant of selection grade and respondent No. 2 Shri Agarwal has applied for the post whereas he is not eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian. According to the petitioner the Ph.D. degree obtained by the (respondent No. 2) is in the subject of Law and not in Library Science. It has been prayed that the respondent University be directed not to hold interview for the post of Dy. Librarian Selection Grade and not to consider the candidature of the respondent No. 2 for the post. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the University, it has been averred that respondent No. 2 Shri Agarwal holds Ph.D degree and therefore he can be given relaxation of three years whereby he becomes eligible for the post of Dy. Librarian. 5. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the University, it has been averred that respondent No. 2 Shri Agarwal holds Ph.D degree and therefore he can be given relaxation of three years whereby he becomes eligible for the post of Dy. Librarian. 5. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it has been averred that the said degree of Ph.D. of respondent No. 2 is provisional and has not yet been approved by the Board of Management and therefore respondent No. 2 is not eligible to apply for the post. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record. 7. The contention of Mr. Bora was that the petitioner is holding the post of Dy. Librarian on ad hoc basis and if respondent No. 2 who is not eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian is selected and appointed it will deprive the petitioner of his right to hold the post. He contended that clauses (ii) and (iii) of Para 6 of the scheme are not being correctly interpreted by the University and the respondent No. 2 who holds only provisional certificate of Ph. D. degree, is not eligible to hold the post as the Ph.D. degree obtained by him is on the Law subject and not on Library Science. 8. On the other hand Mr. Gupta and Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the writ petition of the petitioner is premature as the petitioner has not become eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian and also because only interviews have been called and if at all respondent No. 2 is selected the petitioner can challenge his appointment. It was pointed out that there is relaxation of three years in the case of those Assistant Librarians, who obtain Ph.D. degree during their tenure as Assistant Librarians and thereby they become eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian. 9. I have carefully considered the above arguments. It is not the case for the petitioner that he is eligible to be promoted to the post of Dy. Librarian. According to the petitioner he will complete 16 years of service in June, 1998, thus he becomes eligible for the promotion to the post of Dy. Librarian in June, 1998. Since the petitioner has not become eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian. According to the petitioner he will complete 16 years of service in June, 1998, thus he becomes eligible for the promotion to the post of Dy. Librarian in June, 1998. Since the petitioner has not become eligible to hold the post of Dy. Librarian, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Obviously, the writ petition is premature. 10. Even otherwise, only the process of selection for the post of Dy. Librarian has been commenced. It may be that Shri Agarwal respondent No. 2 is the only applicant for the post but it is not necessary that he is bound to be selected for the promotion post. The selection process cannot be scuttled on the writ petition of the petitioner, who is himself not eligible to be considered for the post. 11. The contentions of Mr. Bora that the Ph. D. degree has yet not been approved by the Board of Management or that it is not in the subject to Library Science are not required to be decided in this writ petition. After the petitioner becomes eligible for the post of Dy. Librarian if he is so advised he may challenge the appointment of respondent No. 2 on these grounds. 12. It is to be noticed that under the Career Advancement Scheme persons of all the categories from (i) to (vi) have been made eligible to get selection scale of 3700-5700, even though they are not promoted to the post of Dy. Librarian. Para Nos. 8 and 10 make it clear that only persons falling into the category of (ii) and (iii) are eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Librarian carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and the persons of other categories are also entitled to the same selection grade of Rs. 3700-5700 and those posts of Asstt. Librarians will also be treated to have been upgraded to the post of Dy. Librarian. 13. As already observed, the writ petition is premature. It is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******