JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. 2. The petitioner, who is an Associate Professor, in the University of Rajasthan, Department of Economic Administration and Financial Management (for short 'the EAFM') had filed a writ petition vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1329/91, in which he sought direction from this Court to include the petitioner's name in the list of candidates to be interviewed by the University of Rajasthan for the post of Associate Professor (Reader) under the rules governing the department of E.A.F.M. 3. On 7-3-1991 while issuing notice of the stay application, this Court directed that since the petitioner had not been interviewed earlier by the University for the post of Associate Professor in Career Advancement Scheme (for short 'C.A.S.') which was scheduled for 8th March, 1991 it was accordingly directed by this Court that the petitioner shall also be interviewed along with other candidates to be interviewed for the above post by the Selection Committee with a further stipulation that result of the petitioner's interview shall not be declared till further orders. It was in compliance of the above direction that though the University had interviewed the petitioner on 8-11-1991, but kept his result in a sealed cover. 4. The writ petition was finally heard and decided on 16-10-1998 with the following directions:- "Shri Sharma (Advocate of respondent party) has very fairly given out that the Grievance Committee has taken a decision to condone the break in service of the petitioner and thus the petitioner has been treated eligible for screening for the purpose of promotion on the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner had also been interviewed by the Committee in pursuance of the directions given by the Court on the stay application. The respondent-University should now declare the result of the interview of the petitioner and in case the petitioner has been found suitable by the Screening Committee, he should be given promotion as Associate Professor within three weeks. So far as the petitioner's seniority is concerned, the University shall give the same treatment to the petitioner as has been given to the persons who were subjected to the Screening along with the petitioner." 5. So far as the petitioner's seniority is concerned, the University shall give the same treatment to the petitioner as has been given to the persons who were subjected to the Screening along with the petitioner." 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner's case was placed before the Screening Committee as constituted by the University and was duly considered by the said Committee in its meeting convened on 29th October, 1992 and 5th November, 1992 respectively. The said Committee found the petitioner's case eligible after screening for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the department of EAFM of the University of Rajasthan at Jaipur and the petitioner has already been promoted as Associate Professor. 6. As regards the proper placement of the petitioner in the cadre of seniority of Assistant Professors is concerned, which is the substantive post prior to determining the eligibility of a candidate for promotion to the next post of Associate Professor, it was directed by this Court vide its order dated 16-10-1992 that the University shall give the same treatment to the petitioner as has been given to the persons who were subjected to the screening along with the petitioner. With the above direction the writ petition was finally disposed of. 7. Thereafter since the University did not comply with the aforesaid directions till the year 1997, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by way of contempt petition vide S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 515/93, which was decided after giving detailed hearing to the parties on 12-2-1997 with the following directions:- "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation as well as the directions of this Court dated 16-10-1992 which have not yet been implemented by respondents I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents:- (1) to publish a provisional seniority list by making proper placement of the petitioner as Associate Professor in the Career Advancement Scheme and other candidates in the categories as referred to above from the date when the seniority of the petitioner as Associate Professor vis-a-vis other candidates is due and the said provisional seniority list should be published positively within a period of 90 days from today. (2) the question with regard to the pay-fixation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the candidates, who were immediately placed junior to the petitioners as per the original seniority list should also be determined by the respondents as soon as their seniority is finalised and published. The petitioner shall have liberty to file his objections to the provisional seniority list within 30 days of its publication. In case the aforesaid directions are not complied with by the respondents within the stipulated period as referred to above, the petitioner shall have the liberty to move this Court again for seeking appropriate directions in this matter." 8. Since the petitioner already stood promoted on the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 26-11-1990 and has been serving on the said post as of today, it was not felt necessary to give further directions except to the extent as aforesaid and the contempt petition accordingly stood disposed of. 9. Now the only question which requires to be considered is with regard to the pay fixation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the candidates who were immediately placed junior to the petitioner as per the original seniority list, which was directed to be determined by the respondents, as soon as their seniority is finalised and published i.e. direction No. 2 contained in the order dated 12-2-1997. 10. At the outset, the relevant rule which requires application to the instant case is Rule 13A of the Career Advancement Scheme as adopted by the University's Syndicate w.e.f. 22-8-1989, I am informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University that it is in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(12) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, which reads as under:- "13-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the above Rule 13, the benefit of seniority to persons promoted as Reader (Associate Professor) under the C.A.S. shall be given from the date of approval of such promotion by the Syndicate. The inter se seniority of Readers (Associate Professors) whose promotions have been approved by the Syndicate on one and the same date, shall be determined on the basis of their inter se seniority in the University in the lower cadre i.e. Lecturer (Asstt. Professor)." 11. The inter se seniority of Readers (Associate Professors) whose promotions have been approved by the Syndicate on one and the same date, shall be determined on the basis of their inter se seniority in the University in the lower cadre i.e. Lecturer (Asstt. Professor)." 11. The legal opinion of the Advocate-General was also sought by the University on this question and accordingly it was resolved that the persons who had been appointed on regular basis as Reader before the date of approval of the first promotions under Career Advancement Scheme by the Syndicate, i.e., w.e.f. 25-3-1991, will remain senior to persons promoted as Readers under C.A.S. on 25-3-1991 or on dates subsequent thereto and to whom the benefit of promotion has been given from the retrospective date shall be entitled to the same. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the post of Associate Professor in the department of E.A.F.M. is equivalent to the post of Reader in Rajasthan University in any of the Specialities. The University had resolved that the seniority of the persons who were to be promoted in future shall be determined in accordance with Rule 13-A and following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University, reported in 1995(4) JT (SC) 51 : 1995(3) SCT 362 (SC) 13. As per the ratio of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava (supra), the Apex Court while considering the application of Sections 6, 35(O), 49, 63 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which was a Merit Promotion Scheme of the UGC with regard to the determination of the inter se seniority between direct recruits and the promotees, the question which arose for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether a merit promotee Reader or Professor in the service of respondent-University can be treated at par with directly recruited Reader or Professor for the purpose of fixing their inter se seniority ? It was observed by the Apex Court while finally deciding the appeal of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava with a view to avoid stagnation and heart burning amongst eligible candidates, promotional avenues should be made available in any service as laid down by the Apex Court in number of its decisions as discussed in the said judgment. 14. It was observed by the Apex Court while finally deciding the appeal of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava with a view to avoid stagnation and heart burning amongst eligible candidates, promotional avenues should be made available in any service as laid down by the Apex Court in number of its decisions as discussed in the said judgment. 14. In any event there is no dispute in the instant case regarding the determination of inter se seniority with regard to the direct recruitment and which was the subject-matter of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava's case (supra). 15. In order to resolve the controversy, it will be pertinent to mention that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court on 16-10-1992 and thereafter the order on 12-2-1997, by which it was further directed that the case of the petitioner falls under the fourth category i.e. determination of seniority on the basis of C.A.S. since the University has till date not finally determined the seniority of Associate Professors vis-a-vis other candidates under the C.A.S. it was accordingly directed that the petitioner's seniority shall be determined in the said category in compliance with the directions dated 16-10-1992, by which the writ petition was finally allowed and disposed of. From the perusal of the Notification dated 29-8-1997, issued by the respondent-University, it is apparent that in compliance of Rule 13A, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 4 in the seniority list and his date of promotion to the post of Associate Professor from the substantive post of Assistant Professor, in pursuance of the Syndicate's meeting has been approved as on 25th/26th March, 1991. The approval of the Syndicate was conveyed on 4th December, 1992. From the perusal of the Annexure 11, which is the list of Assistant Professors issued by the University, the date of appointment of the petitioner in column 4 has been indicated as w.e.f. 23rd August 1979 at Serial No. 15, instead of 23rd August 1969 which is typographical error while of Dr. Satish Kumar Batra in the department of Economics as Assistant Professor has been indicated as 2-5-1985 and his date of promotion on the said post has been indicated as w.e.f. 22-10-1987. The petitioner thus obviously ranks senior to Dr. S.K. Batra both in terms of date of his appointment as well as his relative seniority, if reckoned from the date of joining of Dr. The petitioner thus obviously ranks senior to Dr. S.K. Batra both in terms of date of his appointment as well as his relative seniority, if reckoned from the date of joining of Dr. S.K. Batra in order of appointment and as per the requirement of Rule 13A, a candidate before he is entitled to take the benefit with regard to determination of his pay fixation and other consequential benefits, the requisite length of service on the substantive post of Assistant Professor should be 13 years, which is an admitted position as per the University Guidelines for C.A.S. 1989, as also clarified in this context by the learned counsel representing the respondent University that in compliance with rule 13A, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Professor in Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 26-11-1990 which was approved by the Syndicate w.e.f. 4-12-1992 while in the case of Dr. S.K. Batra, he was promoted as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 22-10-1987, while the Syndicate gave its approval w.e.f. 25th/26th March, 1991. 16. Be that as it may, the petitioner had completed the requisite 13 years of service as Assistant Professor inclusive of two years of teaching experience in Govt. College as on the date when he was promoted as Associate professor i.e. 26-11-1990, while Dr. S.K. Batra, who was immediately junior to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list had completed 15 years of service inclusive of the teaching experience when he joined the University i.e. on 2nd of May, 1985. 17. As a result of the above discussion, and keeping in view of seniority of the petitioner as per C.A.S. since the petitioner already stood promoted as Associate Professor, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 16-10-1992, as he was found suitable for the same pursuant to the recommendations of the Screening Committee, I am of the view that the respondents have to make proper placement of the petitioner in the order of seniority vis-a-vis Dr. S.K. Batra, who was immediately junior to the petitioner from the date of joining since the petitioner had joined the University prior to Dr. S.K. Batra, and consequently ranks senior in terms of his appointment, should be ranked senior as Associate Professor as per the requirement of Rule 13A of the Rules. 18. S.K. Batra, who was immediately junior to the petitioner from the date of joining since the petitioner had joined the University prior to Dr. S.K. Batra, and consequently ranks senior in terms of his appointment, should be ranked senior as Associate Professor as per the requirement of Rule 13A of the Rules. 18. The respondents are accordingly directed to publish the final seniority list within four weeks and provisional seniority list published earlier on 29-8-1997, by the respondents shall stand modified accordingly. 19. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a Committee has to be constituted by the University for compliance of aforesaid directions. He has further stated that the same shall be positively constituted within a period of four weeks from today for determination of petitioner's seniority as well as the question with regard to the pay fixation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the candidates who were immediately placed junior to the petitioner as per the original seniority list shall also be determined by the respondents within a period of two weeks thereafter and their seniority shall be finalised and published positively within a period of six weeks in all from today. 20. In the result, the application is allowed and stands finally disposed of. The compliance report in pursuance of the above, directions shall be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks i.e. by 21st June, 1999.Application allowed. *******