ORDER : G.B. Pattanaik, B.N. Agrawal, JJ. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where under the question of inter se seniority in the cadre of Professor is the subject-matter of dispute. 2. Under the University Statute the post of Professor is filled up by direct recruitment. As there was a lot of stagnation in the lower ranks, the University Grants Commission (UGC) evolved a policy called "Merit Promotion Scheme". This policy was adopted by different universities including Haryana Agricultural University at Hissar. Under the said Scheme, when people in the lower rank of Reader got stagnated for a number of years, then it was open for the University to grant them scale of pay of that of a Professor. Be it stated that implementation of the aforesaid stagnation policy and granting rank of Professor to the Readers under the policy, did not enlarge the cadre position of Professor in the University. The University, however, treated these employees to be a part of the cadre and accordingly was of the opinion that continuous length of service would be the criterion for their seniority. 3. The direct recruit Professors who had been appointed in accordance with clause 4(2) of the Statute, approached the High Court claiming that they must be held to be senior to these promotees and the judgment of this Court in the case of Rashmi Srivastava (Dr) v. Vikram University, JT (1995) 4 SC 51 clearly clinches the issue. The promotees who were respondents in the High Court however contended that once they have been promoted by virtue of the amendment to the Statute as contained in Chapter 4-A(III), on promotion they must be deemed to be a part of the cadre and consequently the provision for seniority contained in Statute 8 would govern the case and therefore rightly the University has been treating them to be senior. 4. The High Court by the impugned judgment, on analysis of the different provisions of the Statute, came to hold that the persons getting promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme cannot be held to be a part of the cadre and, therefore, they cannot claim seniority on the basis of their continuous appointment inasmuch as the seniority is always determined in a cadre. The High Court thus allowed the writ petition filed by those direct recruits, and hence the promotees are in appeal before us. 5. Mr Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that even in the judgment of this Court in Dr Rashmi Srivastava case (1995) 3 SCC 653 : JT (1995) 4 SC 51 it has been clearly indicated that the moment the University Statute is amended and a new source of recruitment is created, the promotees can claim to be a part of the cadre and therefore would be entitled to claim seniority. Mr Gupta also further contended that the later decision of this Court in the case of Prof. S.A. Siddiqui v. Prof. M. Wajid Khan (1999) 2 SCC 1 : JT (1999) 1 SC 1 clearly supports the contention of the promotees and the High Court must be held to have committed error in granting seniority to the direct recruits. 6. It is no doubt true that in the University Statute wherein the post of Professor could be filled up only by direct recruitment, an amendment has been made and a provision has been inserted to make promotion of the Assistant Professor or equivalent to Associate Professor in accordance with the Merit Promotion Scheme evolved by UGC. But the very provision would indicate that the so-called promotion to the next higher position would be on the very post itself without addition to the number of faculty positions and that has to be done on the basis of an assessment of his performance through a prescribed procedure. In other words, the amended Statute which provides for promotion unequivocally declares that there would not be any accretion to the cadre of Professor but it is only for the purpose of implementation of the policy evolved by UGC, namely, the Merit Promotion Scheme to avoid stagnation. That being the position and the inter se seniority being required to be determined in a cadre, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment requiring our interference. 7. The later decision which Mr Gupta strongly relied upon is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in that case the very Statute 27 had been amended providing rules for determination of inter se seniority and it clearly indicated as to how the posts obtained by the incumbents on the Merit Promotion Scheme would form a part of the cadre. 7. The later decision which Mr Gupta strongly relied upon is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in that case the very Statute 27 had been amended providing rules for determination of inter se seniority and it clearly indicated as to how the posts obtained by the incumbents on the Merit Promotion Scheme would form a part of the cadre. So far as the relevant Statute with which we are concerned in the present case is concerned, having examined the same, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that these promotees are never borne in the cadre of Professor and therefore the High Court rightly held that they cannot claim seniority on the basis of their continuous appointment to the post in question. 8. We therefore do not find any merits in these appeals which accordingly stand dismissed. 9. The University is directed to draw up the seniority list in accordance with our observations here in above and judgment of the High Court. Appeals dismissed.