Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to appointment of Professor Incharge of Nitishwar College, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the College). The petitioner seeks quashing of (a) office memo no. B/256 dated 30.1.2001 of Respondent B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University appointing respondent no. 5 Dr. Narendra Narayan Singh as Professor Incharge of the college to perform the duties and functions of the post of Principal as the seniormost teacher of the college, (b) memo no. B/2566 dated 22.8.91 of the said University by which respondent no. 5 was granted temporary promotion as Reader under Eight Years Merit Promotion Scheme with effect from 22.12.86 subject to concurrence of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission and (c) memo no. B/504 dated 4.3.97 of the said University by which on receipt of concurrence of the Commission the said ternporary promotion as Reader was made permanent. The petitioner also seeks direction upon the respondent-University (a); to shift the date of his time bound promotion as Reader with effect from 1.2.85 and, consequently, grant him promotion as University Professor with effect from 1.6.94 and (b) to declare him the seniormost teacher of the college and permit him to function as its Professor Incharge. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a founder teacher of the College. He was appointed as lecturer and Head of the Department of Economics by the then Managing Committee of the College on 21.7.70. On 22.7.70 appointment letter was issued pursuant to which he joined the post on 2.8.70. The college was granted affiliation initially for two academic sessions for 1970-71 and 1971-72 which was subsequently extended for two more sessions from 1972-73. The affiliation was discontinued for the sessions 1974-76 but it was granted again for two years from 1976- 77 upto intermediate level, as before. On 6.8.80 affiliation was granted for the B.A. pass course for the sessions 1978-79 to 1980-81. Meanwhile the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the College by the then Governing Body on 5.3.78. On 28.10.80 the College Service Commission recommended permanent absorption of the petitioner under the Absorption Statute. On 24.11.90 the Governing Body of the College resolved to appoint him on permanent basis with effect from the date of first joining. The Vice-Chancellor was requested to move the Chancellor to approve the appointment from the date of first joining. On 28.10.80 the College Service Commission recommended permanent absorption of the petitioner under the Absorption Statute. On 24.11.90 the Governing Body of the College resolved to appoint him on permanent basis with effect from the date of first joining. The Vice-Chancellor was requested to move the Chancellor to approve the appointment from the date of first joining. On 9.2.82 under order of the Vice-Chancellor he was made temporary Principal. The petitioner continued as temporary principal of the College until one Shri B.S. Chouhan joined as regular Principal. On his superannuation on 31.1.89 the petitioner was again made Professor Incharge. He continued as such upto 17.1.96 when one Dr. Nawal Kishore joined as Principal. On 6.3.96 the petitioner was granted promotion as Reader under Time Bound Promotion Scheme with effect from 1.6.88. After the Commission concurred in the said promotion on 28.11.96 the said promotion effective from 1.6.88 was notified by the University. On 29.9.97 he was granted promotion as Professor under Time Bound Promotion Scheme with effect from 24.8.95. He made representation before the University as well as the Commission to shift back his date of promotion as Reader with effect from 1.2.85 and as University Professor with effect from 1.6.94. Instead, on retirement of said Dr. Nawal Kishore on 31.1.2000, respondent no. 5 was made Professor Incharge. The petitioner has made averments to support his claim for promotion as Reader/Professor with effect from 1.2.85/1.6.94 and assail appointment of Respondent no. 5 as Professor Incharge. 3. As regards respondent no. 5, the case of the petitioner is that he was absorbed in the service of the University under the 24 Months Absorption Statute as per decision of the Syndicate at its meeting held on 24.8.83 notified by the University vide memo no. B/878 dated 25.2.84. Respondent no. 5, as such, is entitled to claim seniority as lecturer with effect from 24.8.83 and not before. However, he too was granted promotion as Reader under Time Bound Promotion Scheme with effect from 1.6.88. While assailing the case of respondent no. 5 it has been stated that the College was not affiliated in the science subjects at the degree level until 1985 when vide letter dated 18.2.85 the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education the State Government granted permission for the B.Sc. (Pass) Course but without creation of any post. In other words even though the permission to start B.Sc. 5 it has been stated that the College was not affiliated in the science subjects at the degree level until 1985 when vide letter dated 18.2.85 the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education the State Government granted permission for the B.Sc. (Pass) Course but without creation of any post. In other words even though the permission to start B.Sc. (Pass) course was accorded, posts in the science subjects were not created. Respondent no. 5 thus cannot claim teaching experience in a science subject. He was however, granted promotion under the Eight-Years Merit Promotion Scheme as Reader with effect from 22.12.86 even though the appointment as lecturer is to be reckoned from the date of the decision of the Syndicate in the matter of his absorption as lecturer i.e. 24.8.83. The said merit promotion was initially granted on 22.8.91 on temporary basis until receipt of the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. On receipt of the recommendation of the Commission the promotion was made permanent on 3.3.97 effective from 22.12.86. In the meantime on 5.7.96 he had been promoted as University Professor under 16 years Time Bound Promotion Scheme with effect from 1.6.94. 4. The case of respondent no. 5 is that in terms of the 18 Months Absorption Statute under which the petitioner was absorbed as lecturer on 28.10.80/24.11.80, the absorption has to be reckoned from the date of recommendation of the Commission i.e. 28.10.80 and therefore, his services prior to that date cannot be reckoned and he thus cannot claim seniority on the basis of his appointment on 22.7.70. So far as the (respondent no. 5) is concerned, his appointment has to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment i.e. 12.7.1976 in terms of the 24 Months Absorption Statute under which he was absorbed and thus he must be treated senior to the petitioner as lecturer. At the level of Reader also the promotion of respondent no. 5 was earlier than the petitioner. While the petitioner was promoted with effect from 1.6.88, he (respondent no. 5) was promoted with effect from 22.12.86. His promotion as Professor too was earlier in point of time. While the petitioner was promoted with effect from 24.8.95, he (respondent no. 5) was promoted with effect from 1.6.94. Thus at all levels-as Lecturer, Reader and University Professor-the appointment/promotion of respondent no. 5) was promoted with effect from 22.12.86. His promotion as Professor too was earlier in point of time. While the petitioner was promoted with effect from 24.8.95, he (respondent no. 5) was promoted with effect from 1.6.94. Thus at all levels-as Lecturer, Reader and University Professor-the appointment/promotion of respondent no. 5 being earlier, the petitioner cannot claim seniority over him. 5. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent no. 5 was not eligible for promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme and therefore, he cannot claim seniority over the petitioner by virtue of that promotion, the validity of which has also been challenged in this writ petition. He submitted that under the relevant Merit Promotion Statute only lecturers engaged in advanced teaching and research whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition, may be considered for merit promotion after eight years of continuous service as lecturer of which at least 4 years should in the Department where he is to be considered for such promotion. As regards respondent no. 5 it was contended that he was never engaged in advanced teaching muchless in any University Department as required by the Statute, and even if the graduate teaching is treated as advanced teaching, as affiliation was granted for B.Sc. course only on 12.4.85, he did not have eight years teaching experience and thus-could not be considered for merit promotion. Further respondent no. 5 has not made any contribution in the academic field. The solitary Article (copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure 17) which is the basis of the respondents claim, has been co-authored by three persons including respondent no. 5 and he thus cannot claim more than one-third credit for the same. The same therefore cannot be treated as contribution or achievement as to merit recognition for grant of merit promotion. In any view of the matter, it could not be given from a back date. Such promotion does not affect inter se seniority, It is a personal promotion to the person concerned. Since the petitioners appointment as lecturer relates to 1970, as against respondents appointment in 1976, the petitioner must be treated as senior to him. He was treated as seniormost until 30.1.2001 which is evident from the fact that he was appointed acting Principal/ Professor Incharge prior to appointment of regular Principal, namely Shri B.S. Chauhan and during the interregnum after he retired. He was treated as seniormost until 30.1.2001 which is evident from the fact that he was appointed acting Principal/ Professor Incharge prior to appointment of regular Principal, namely Shri B.S. Chauhan and during the interregnum after he retired. 6. Shri Indu Shekher Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as lecturer has little significance in view of the express provisions of the relevant Absorption Statute i.e. 18 months Absorption Statute as per which seniority is to be reckoned from the date of recommendation of the Commission. The date of recommendation of the Commission in the case of the petitioner being 28.10.80, he cannot claim seniority on the basis of his prior service. Shri Sinha submitted that the petitioner cannot go behind the terms of the Absorption Statute under which he was absorbed. Shri Sinha pointed out that respondent no. 5 was absorbed under another Statute known as 24 months Absorption Statute, the terms of which were more rigorous than those of the 18 months Absorption Statute framed earlier. He went into the historical background in which the said Statute was framed. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 thus having been absorbed under different statutes, their cases would be governed by the terms of the relevant Statute and they cannot be treated as par. Shri Sinha justified the merit promotion of respondent no. 5 as Reader. He submitted that such promotion having been granted on the recommendation of experts, this Court cannot sit in appeal over their judgment. He cited authorities in support of his contention which I shall refer at the appropriate place in this judgment. Shri Sinha submitted that in any view of the matter, the petitioner cannot challenge the merit promotion after more than 10 years. The promotion was granted initially on temporary basis on 22.8.91 which was made permanent on receipt of the recommendation of the Commission on 3.3.97. It was stated that the petitioner made representation to shift the date of his Time Bound Promotion which stand has been (sic) by the University. 7. The respondent-Univesity has not filed counter affidavit. Shri Jainandan Singh however, submitted that for the purpose of promotion as Principal, the nature of promotion as Reader/Professor-under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme or the Merit Promotion Scheme is not relevant. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 7. The respondent-Univesity has not filed counter affidavit. Shri Jainandan Singh however, submitted that for the purpose of promotion as Principal, the nature of promotion as Reader/Professor-under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme or the Merit Promotion Scheme is not relevant. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 were initially appointed on the same date i.e. 12.7.76 and they were also granted temporary concurrence on the same date i.e. 18.1.78. However, by virtue of promotion (Merit Promotion) as Reader with effect from 22.12.86 respondent no. 5 was treated as senior to the petitioner. He pointed out that eight years teaching experience which the candidate must fulfil under the Merit Promotion Statute was counted from the date of aforesaid concurrence of the Commission dated 18.1.78 and thus as on 22.12.86 respondent no. 5 was eligible. While granting Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner, it was pointed out, the same date i.e. 18.1.78 has been treated as the reckoning date. The petitioner filed representation for shifting back his date of promotion which has been rejected by the University. 8. I find substance in the contention of the counsel for respondent no. 5 that the petitioner cannot claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 12.7.76. Admittedly he was absorbed as Lecturer under the Statute titled Statute regarding recognition of purely temporary Lecturers framed by the Chancellor vide letter no. 3666/G.S. (1) dated 16.11.78, commonly known as 18 Months Regularisation/ Absorption Statute. It may be mentioned here that the said Statute was framed to meet a peculiar situation prevailing in the State of Bihar where a large number of Lecturers were working even after their appointment had lapsed on expiry of six months period on account of non-concurrence of the under Section 48A (10) proviso of the Bihar State (Universities of Bihar, Bhagalpur, and Ranchi) Act, 1960. In order to end the prevailing uncertainty regarding their continuance and keeping in view the interest of the colleges the Chancellor framed the above said Statute on 16.11.78. In order to end the prevailing uncertainty regarding their continuance and keeping in view the interest of the colleges the Chancellor framed the above said Statute on 16.11.78. In terms of the Statute the temporary Lecturers who had rendered actual 18 months total service in one or more constituent/affiliated colleges in two or more academic sessions upto 30.6.77 became eligible for absorption provided the posts on which they were working were duly sanctioned and the post(s) on which they had worked earlier in the past for 18 months were also duly sanctioned, and such appointment had been made after advertisement in reputed newspapers specified in the Statute, and finally, their work was found to be satisfactory. Such absorption was to be made on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission/ University Service Commission. Article 2 of the Statute lays down that seniority of such absorbed lecturers will be counted from the date of recommendation of the Commission and it is from that date that the annual increments would be admissible to them. In view of its significance, Article 2 may be quoted as under : Aise Vyakhyata ki Wariyata Ki Ganana Rajya Lok Seva Aayog Ki Anushansa ki tithi se ki jaigi tatha unhe warshik wetan bridhi bhi usi tithi ke aadhar par anumanya ki jaigi. In view of the above clear provision of the statute there cannot be two opinions that petitioner cannot claim seniority prior to 28.10.80 when the commission made its recommendation for his absorption. 9. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, undisputedly he was absorbed under another Statute framed by the Chancellor vide letter dated 5240 GS (1) dated 18.11.80. In view of the above clear provision of the statute there cannot be two opinions that petitioner cannot claim seniority prior to 28.10.80 when the commission made its recommendation for his absorption. 9. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, undisputedly he was absorbed under another Statute framed by the Chancellor vide letter dated 5240 GS (1) dated 18.11.80. Under the said Statute a purely temporary lecturer who is in the service of the University or an affiliated college as a lecturer was to be appointed by the Syndicate or the Governing Body, as the case may be, in the regular service of the University or the College concerned where he was working, if he was in the service of the University or the concerned College as lecturer for a period of 24 months on 31.12.80 during two or more academic sessions taken together and the post on which he was working was duly sanctioned by the competent authority, "if he possesses the qualifications for the post of Lecturer as prescribed in the Statutes at the time of his first appointment" besides his work being found to be satisfactory. It would thus appear that the terms of the said Statute, commonly known as 24 Months Absorption Statute were different from those of the earlier one and, if I may say so agreeing with the respondents counsel, more rigorous than the earlier one. While under the 18 Months Absorption Statute there was no condition that the candidate should possess the qualification prescribed in the relevant Statutes and all such temporary lecturers who had put in 18 months actual service on sanctioned post(s) were to be absorbed provided their appointments had been made after advertisement and their work was found to be satisfactory, under the latter statute an embargo was put. Unless the working lecturers possessed the prescribed qualification " at the time of his first appointment" he could not be absorbed as lecturer. 10. It is relevant to point out that under Article 5 of the 24 months Absorption Statute, unlike Article 2 of the 18 Months Absorption Statute, quoted above, the seniority of lecturers absorbed in regular service is to be determined from the date of absorption, the only rider being that it shall be so fixed that inter se seniority existing before absorption remained unaffected. Thus, while in the case of the petitioner, as per Article 2 of the relevant Statute, his seniority is to be treated from the date of recommendation of the Commission i.e. 28.10.80, in the case of respondent no. 5, as per Article 5 of the Statute, it is to be treated from the date of absorption. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that as per the Government decision contained in letter no. 906 dated 16.7.82 of the Education Department, upon absorption of temporary lecturers the date of initial appointment is to be treated as date of absorption. Though the petitioner also was absorbed in the service of the College, in view of Article 2 of the Absorption Statute which has statutory force, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said Government order. 11. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Article 5 of the 24 months Absorption Statute the seniority of lecturers absorbed in regular service did not disturb the inter se seniority as it existed in the service of the University or the College before their absorption. The submission has been noted only to be rejected for the reason that the provision for keeping the existing inter se seniority intact relates to only such lecturers who are absorbed under the particular Statute i.e. 24 Months Absorption Statute. The words "absorbed in the regular services under the above provisions", clearly refer to the provisions contained in the preceding articles i.e. Articles 1 to 4. In any view of the matter, the petitioner and respondent no. 5 having been absorbed under two different Statutes, containing different terms, they cannot be treated at par. 12. In fairness to the petitioner it must be pointed out that in the letter (date not legible) contained in annexure G/5 of the respondents affidavit, the dates of appointment/joining of both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 were mentioned as 20.6.76/12.7.76, later on 15.3.79 vide Annexure-23 to the petitioners supplementary reply to the respondents counter affidavit, a letter was purportedly sent by the Secretary of the College to the Secretary of the Bihar University Service Commission to the effect that in the earlier letter, the date of resolution (appointment) and the date of joining of the petitioner had inadvertently beervtyped as 20.6.76 and 12.7.76 instead of 21, 8.70 and 2.8.70. The submission has been noted only to be rejected summarily. The submission has been noted only to be rejected summarily. In the facts and circumstances, I have no manner of doubt that the said letter dated 15.3.79 was written with some oblique motive to cause advantage to the petitioner. In any view, as held above, seniority of the petitioner has to be reckoned from the date of recommendation of the Commission i.e. 28.10.80 and therefore any attempt to ante date the appointment was futile. The Commission apparently did not rely on the said letter. The claim of the petitioner for shifting the date of promotion also stands rejected. In these premises the petitioners claim of seniority on the basis of his alleged prior appointment must be rejected. 13. I shall now consider the validity of the Merit Promotion of respondent no. 5 as Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme. It is not in dispute that if the merit promotion of respondent no. 5 is not interfered with by this Court, the petitioner cannot be treated senior. The relevant provisions as to merit promotion are contained in the Statute known as Statute regarding Merit Promotion of Lecturers as Readers framed by the Chancellor vide his letter no. 3975/ GS (1) dated 22.12.86. Article 1 of the Statute lays down eligibility for such promotion. Article 2 indicates the basic objectives of such promotion. Article 3 provides that not more than one-third of the number of permanent position of Lecturers within a department may be allowed promotion as Readers, the main criteria being the merit of work and not the seniority of teachers. Such promotion is to be treated as personal promotion. The post of lecturer who is promoted as Reader shall be deemed to be upgraded with effect from the date of such promotion and shall remain upgraded as such till the incumbent continues to hold the post. Under Articles 4 and 5, the promotion depends on consideration and assessment of work done by the teacher, such as research, publications, books reviews etc. by two referees to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor out of a panel prepared by the Inter-University Board for nomination of experts for the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. Under Article 6 the evaluation reports submitted by the referees is to be kept confidential. Under Article 7 entire papers are to be referred to the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for its recommendation. Under Article 6 the evaluation reports submitted by the referees is to be kept confidential. Under Article 7 entire papers are to be referred to the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for its recommendation. The Commission is supposed to give due consideration to the opinion of the referees with the assistance of two outside experts in making recommendation. After these formalities are observed, under Article 8 the Syndicate makes appointment in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. Meanwhile the Syndicate may on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor grant temporary promotion till receipt of the recommendation of the Commission provided the candidate in the opinion of both the referees fulfils the conditions prescribed under the Statute and is found fit to be promoted as Reader. 14. The above provisions would make it clear that merit promotion is granted not on the basis of seniority but on consideration of merit after assessment of the work and performance of the concerned lecturers, firstly by two referees selected by the Vice-Chancellor from a standing panel prepared by the Inter University Board and thereafter by the Commission with the assistance of two external experts. Those who have been granted merit promotion thus cannot be treated at par with their counterparts who have been granted time bound promotion. 15. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 did not possess the requisite qualification inasmuch as he was not engaged in advanced teaching and research nor he has made any contribution which could be regarded as achievement as to merit recognition. He also submitted that such advanced teaching must be in Post-graduate Department. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 was at pains to submit that respondent no. 5 had 8 years continuous service as lecturer out of which four years were in the College where he was working and for which he was considered for promotion. Counsel submitted that term Department in Article 1 does not necessarily refer to Post Graduate Department. Though affiliation was granted in 1985 he was engaged in graduate teaching from 1982 itself. Besides he had also research articles to his credit, such as Annexure 17. 16. Counsel submitted that term Department in Article 1 does not necessarily refer to Post Graduate Department. Though affiliation was granted in 1985 he was engaged in graduate teaching from 1982 itself. Besides he had also research articles to his credit, such as Annexure 17. 16. Article 1 of the Statute has been referred to above, but it would be proper to quote it in extenso as under : Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as contained in the Statutes of the University, Lecturers in the University engaged in advanced teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition; may be considered for merit promotion after completing atleast eight years of continuous service as Lecturer of which at least four years should be in the department where he/she is being considered for such assessment and promotion. From perusal of the above provision it, would appear that in order to qualify for merit promotion under the Merit Statute, (a) the lecturer should be engaged in advanced teaching and research, (b) his contribution and achievements should be such as to merit recognition, (c) he should have eight years continuous service as lecturer and (d) out of said eight years service, four years should be in the department where he/she is being considered for such assessment and promotion. According to me the clause "at least eight years of continuous service" refers to the total period of service. It is not necessary that the teacher should be engaged in advanced teaching all these eight years. If he has put in eight years of continuous service as lecturer, out of which 4 years in the department where he is to be considered for promotion, and he is engaged in advanced teaching and research and his contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition, he is eligible for merit promotion. As regards the term department I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the respondent that the term is not to be understood to mean only the Post-graduate Department. If that were so, it would make the Statute inapplicable to lecturers working in Degree Colleges. The Statute does not contain any indication to this effect. As regards the term department I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the respondent that the term is not to be understood to mean only the Post-graduate Department. If that were so, it would make the Statute inapplicable to lecturers working in Degree Colleges. The Statute does not contain any indication to this effect. 17 The question as to whether a lecturer is engaged in advanced teaching or not and whether his contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition are matters which are to be assessed by experts of the subject and this Court in writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over their judgment. As noticed above, the Statute contemplates two-tier assessmentfirstly by two referees to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor from a standing panel prepared by a statutory authority named Inter University Board with the approval of the Chancellor, and thereafter by the Commission with the assistance of two experts from outside. Respondent no. 5 after such assessment was found qualified for merit promotion and it would be difficult for this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction to hold that the respondent was not engaged in advanced teaching and research and his contribution and achievement was not such as to merit recognition. In University of Mysore V/s. CD. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 491 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that the recommendations of the experts in the matter of appointment should not normally be interfered with except in the case of mala fide against the experts. That was a case of appointment on teaching post. Similar view was taken in Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha V/s. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980) 3 SCC 418 , Neelima Misra V/s. Harinder Kaul Paintal, (1990) 2 SCC 746 , Osmania University V/s. Abdul Rayees Khan, (1997) 3 SCC 124 and Dr. Kumar Bar Das V/s. Utkal University, (1999) 1 SCC 453 . 18. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent submitted application for promotion only on 31.3.87 while the promotion was made effective from 22.12.86. On behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that Article 10 of the Merit Promotion Statute provides for submission of the papers by 31st December each year or a date to be fixed by the Vice-Chancellor. The respondent submitted application on 31.3.87 within the time fixed by the Vice-Chancellor. On behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that Article 10 of the Merit Promotion Statute provides for submission of the papers by 31st December each year or a date to be fixed by the Vice-Chancellor. The respondent submitted application on 31.3.87 within the time fixed by the Vice-Chancellor. He claimed promotion as Reader both under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme and Merit Promotion Scheme. He was found fit for promotion under the Merit Promotion Statute. Though in the meantime he had been granted time bound promotion on 5.7.96 with effect from 1.6.94. Under clause (1) of Article 3 of the Merit Promotion Statute the seniority of teachers promoted under the Statute is to be determined from the date of promotion. The Statute has overriding effect by virtue of non-obstante clause contained in Article 1 and therefore, his (respondent) promotion as Reader with effect from 22.12.86 and, consequently, his seniority over the petitioner as Reader cannot be challenged. I find substance in the submission of the counsel for the respondent. 19. As regards the submission that affiliation for the graduate teaching in science having been granted by the Government only in the year 1985, respondent no. 5 cannot be allowed the benefit of teaching experience, if any, earlier, it is not in dispute that the affiliation for the intermediate teaching in science was granted from the session 1976-77 vide para 7 of the writ petition, and so far as teaching at the graduate level is concerned from Annexure L/5 it appears that the actual teaching was being done at the graduate level from 1980- 81 itself. In Dr. Asim Kumar Bose V/s. Union of India, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 509 the appellant had been held to be ineligible for promotion as Professor in the concerned speciality on the ground that he did not hold a regular appointment on a teaching post. The Supreme Court disapproved the decision of the respondents observing that it would cause great injustice to the person who while holding a nonclinical post in a teaching Hospital like the Hospital had actually been teaching the students of Maulana Azad College to which it was attached. The teaching experience gained by the appellant as Radiologist- cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (exofficio) was accordingly recognised even though he did not hold a regular appointment on such post. 20. The teaching experience gained by the appellant as Radiologist- cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (exofficio) was accordingly recognised even though he did not hold a regular appointment on such post. 20. It was submitted that in any view of the matter, the promotion could not be given retrospective effect. It is true that normally promotion should not be made with retrospective effect particularly when it affects the rights of others but where the ground of promotion is purely merit, that principle may not be applicable. As is evident from Article 2 of the Merit Promotion Statute, the object of such promotion is (i) to recognize outstanding work by the University teachers in the areas of teaching and research, (ii) to subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subject/areas concerned; and (iii) to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition on a competitive basis. It is to be kept in mind that promotion under a Time Bound Promotion Scheme is given on the basis of length of service and not on merit. On the other hand promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme is given on consideration of merit and not seniority vide Article 3 of the Statute. As merit promotion and Time Bound promotion cannot be treated at par, the person promoted under the Time Bound Promotion cannot claim infringement of right when the promotion is granted on considerations of merit under Merit Promotion Statute from a date prior to effective date of ones time bound promotion. The time bound promotion does not bring about any accelerated seniority. It rather keeps intact the existing inter se seniority as amongst the persons who are promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The criteria of two promotions being different, the principle that promotion cannot be given with retrospective effect so as to affect the right of others, cannot have application. That would be counter productive of the purposes underlying merit promotion scheme. 21. In any case, the petitioner did not challenge the merit promotion of respondent no. 5 for 10 years. The criteria of two promotions being different, the principle that promotion cannot be given with retrospective effect so as to affect the right of others, cannot have application. That would be counter productive of the purposes underlying merit promotion scheme. 21. In any case, the petitioner did not challenge the merit promotion of respondent no. 5 for 10 years. It may be recalled that merit promotion was initially granted on temporary basis on 22.8.91 itseIf-in accord with Article 8 of the Merit Promotion Statute which provides that if in the opinion of the two referees a lecturer fulfils the conditions prescribed in the Statute and is found fit to be promoted as Reader, the Syndicate may on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor pass order for his promotion on temporary basis till final decision is taken on the recommendation of the Commission. The regular promotion, on receipt of the recommendation of the Commission, was also allowed four years ago before filing of this writ petition. On behalf of respondent no. 5 it was submitted that the promotion having not challenged all these years, challenge should not be entertained at this stage. Reliance was placed on M/s Tilokchand Motichand and ors. V/s. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 898, wherein it was held that stale claim should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction, and Aflatoon and Ors. V/s. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors., AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2077 wherein the Court refused to entertain the claim on the ground of laches. In reply it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no occasion to challenge the impugned promotion until respondent no. 5 was made Professor Incharge treating him as seniormost of the College. Since earlier they were working in two different departments, the grant of promotion to respondent no. 5 with effect from 22.12.86 hardly mattered to the petitioner. Reference was made to K. Prasad V/s. Union of India, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 535, KuIdip Chand V/s. Union of India, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 706, Miss Neelima Shangla V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 169 and Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gnwda V/s. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 80. 22. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is no doubt attractive, but in writ jurisdiction, I do not feel inclined to interfere. 22. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is no doubt attractive, but in writ jurisdiction, I do not feel inclined to interfere. It is well known that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable in nature and exercise thereof is discretionary. While considering the claim of the petitioner, the Court should also take into consideration the result of interference, specially on the respondents. Respondent no. 5 having enjoyed the benefit of merit promotion for about 11 years reckoned from 28.8.91, it would be inequitable to set aside the same. 23. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.