M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24. 1. 1996 Annexure-12 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to open the sealed envelop and recommendation of the Selection Committee held on 28. 1. 1996 in respect of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 until and unless the case of the petitioner is also considered for personal promotion on the post of Professor in Education in Gorakhpur University. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to call for a meeting of the Selection committee for considering the petitioner for personal promotion as professor. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is M. A. , Ph. D. and D. Lit. The petitioner was originally appointed as lecturer in education on 12. 7. 1969 after approval of the Vice Chancellor of Gorakhpur University in Baba raghav Das Degree College, Deoria affiliated to Gorakhpur University. The petitioner worked on that post from 12. 7. 1969 to 29. 4. 1981. In 1981, a substantive vacancy of lecturer in Education was advertised by Gorakhpur University. The petitioner also applied for that post and was duly selected by the Selection Committee and the selection was approved by the Executive Council and thereafter the petitioner was appointed on 30. 4. 1981 as lecturer in Education in Gorakhpur university in permanent capacity. After probation, he was confirmed as permanent lecturer. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a large number of posts of Reader were advertised by the Gorakhpur University in the Education Department. In the selection, the Selection Committee selected the petitioner as well as Dr. N. K. Lal, Dr. Smt. Sheh Lata Sahi, Dr. Ram Deo Singh, Dr. R. K. Joshi and Dr. R. P. Barnwal. All these persons were issued letters of appointment appointing them as Reader on 16. 2. 1987. True copies of these letters including letter of appointment of the petitioner is annexures-1 to 4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner and others joined on these posts on 16. 2. 1987. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner and respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as well as Dr. R. K. Joshi and Dr. R. P. Barnwal were selected and appointed as reader on 16. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner and others joined on these posts on 16. 2. 1987. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner and respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as well as Dr. R. K. Joshi and Dr. R. P. Barnwal were selected and appointed as reader on 16. 2. 1987, i. e. , all of them on the same date. Dr. R. K. Joshi and Dr. Barnwal have now retired. In the seniority list of Reader, the petitioner was at serial No. 2 and Dr. N. K. Lal was at serial No. 1. It is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that as per Statutes of the gorakhpur University, the service rendered by the petitioner in Baba Raghav Das Degree college has to be added to the service in the University vide order dated 17. 12. 1991 Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In paragraph 16 to the writ petition, it is alleged that according to the relevant G. O. and Statute of the University, the petitioner being Ph. D. and having completed 13 years of service as teacher was entitled to be given selection grade from 1982. However, the university granted it only from 1986 against which the petitioner made a representation. On this representation, the then Vice Chancellor ordered for giving selection grade to the petitioner w. e. f. 12. 7. 1982 on the recommendation made by the Accounts Department of the University. True copy of the order dated 27. 4. 1987 giving selection grade to the petitioner containing recommendation of the Accounts Department are Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner has requisite qualification for being promoted as Professor. A Selection Committee was constituted to consider promotion to the post of Professor and 28. 1. 1996 was fixed for interview. The petitioner received the interview letter vide Annexure-9. Alongwith the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were also called for that interview. However, it is stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioner was informed orally on 27. 1. 1996 that he was not called for interview on 28. 1. 1996 for considering him for personal promotion as Professor. The petitioner gave a written representation in this connection vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. However, it is stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioner was informed orally on 27. 1. 1996 that he was not called for interview on 28. 1. 1996 for considering him for personal promotion as Professor. The petitioner gave a written representation in this connection vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. He then gave a representation to the Chancellor and he also gave representation to the respondent No. 1 on 27. 1. 1996 vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. On 30. 1. 1996 the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 2 stating that his call letter dated 23. 1. 1996 has been cancelled. True copy of the said letter is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. No reason has been given in the same why the petitioners call letter had been cancelled. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were called for interview. In paragraph 33 of the petition, it is stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in collusion with the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to make them senior to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE Statute 11. 12b of the University Statute states that a Reader who has put in ten years full time continuous service shall be considered for personal promotion as Professor. It is alleged that the petitioner should have considered for promotion in the interview held on 28. 1. 1996 particularly Since respondent Nos. 5. 6 and 7 were appointed as Readers on 16. 2. 1987, i. e. , on the same date as the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 6 ) COUNTER and supplementary counter-affidavits and their replies have been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is stated that in November, 2000 the petitioner was considered for promotion as Professor but was not found suitable by the Selection Committee vide Annexure-S. C. A. 2. The recommendation of the selection Committee was approved by the Executive Council vide Annexure-S. C. A. 3. Against that the petitioner, submitted a representation to the Chancellor vide Annexure-S. C. A. 4 and 5. The University submitted comments on the petitioners representation vide Annexure-S. C. A. 6. The petitioners representation before the Chancellor is stilt pending. In paragraph 13 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Selection Committee for personal promotion met on 23. 1. Against that the petitioner, submitted a representation to the Chancellor vide Annexure-S. C. A. 4 and 5. The University submitted comments on the petitioners representation vide Annexure-S. C. A. 6. The petitioners representation before the Chancellor is stilt pending. In paragraph 13 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Selection Committee for personal promotion met on 23. 1. 1987. On the date of introduction of Statute 11. 12b respondent No. 5 who was a non-Ph. D. had put in 16 years of service while respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who were Ph. D. had put in 13 years of service but they completed five years service in the University only on 11. 2. 1985. Thus, it is alleged that on 25. 2. 1985. the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were eligible for being considered for promotion as Reader. However, the Selection Committee met on 23. 1. 1987. It is alleged that the promotion of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as Reader should be taken w. e. f. 25. 2. 1985 and as such they had put in ten years service when the Selection Committee met on 28. 1. 1996 for the post of Professor. On the other hand, the petitioner had completed five years service only on 30. 4. 1986 and as such, he became eligible for being considered for promotion only on 29. 4. 1996. Hence the petitioner was not called for interview before the Selection committee for the post of Professor. ( 7 ) WE do not accept this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Statute 11. 12-B has an Explanation which states that a Reader shall mean a teacher who has worked as Reader in a University. Hence the averment in paragraph 13 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 should be considered as promoted as Reader from 25. 2. 1985 is not acceptable. They can be considered for promotion to the post of Professor only 10 years from the date when they actually promoted as Reader, that is, from 16. 2. 1987, and that is the date on which the petitioner too was appointed as Reader. Hence the petitioner should have been called for interview for the post of Professor in the interview held on 28. 1. 1996. Since that was not done, there was discrimination against the petitioner. 2. 1987, and that is the date on which the petitioner too was appointed as Reader. Hence the petitioner should have been called for interview for the post of Professor in the interview held on 28. 1. 1996. Since that was not done, there was discrimination against the petitioner. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the difficulty in the petitioners case is that he was considered in November, 2000 for promotion as Professor but was found unsuitable by the Selection Committee, and the matter is now pending before the Chancellor. Unless the petitioner is found suitable by the University authorities, or the Chancellor, this Court cannot grant him promotion as Professor. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the chancellor to dispose of the petitioners representation, copies of which are Annexures S. C. A. 4 and S. C. A. 5, preferably within two months of production of a copy of this order before the chancellor, If the Chancellor holds the petitioner suitable for promotion as Professor, he will be promoted retrospectively from the date respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were promoted and shall get arrears within three months. ( 10 ) PETITION is disposed of with these observations. .