( 1 ) PETITIONER is working as a Assistant Professor in the first respondent university since 1996. University invited applications for time bound promotion under Stature 30 (4-C) for the Associate Professors Cadre. According to petitioner he is eligible and he applied for the same. Petitioner states that he has served the University for more than 15 years in al and is eligible for the promotion under time bound promotion for the cadre of Associate Professor. According to him, he joined the services at IIHR Bangalore as Technical Assistant from 31-10-1983 and 31-8-1984. He worked in the University as Instructor from 31-10-1984 to 24-9-1987 and further worked as Agricultural development Officer in the Union Bank of India from 25-9-1987 to 16-3-1991 and again joined the university as Instructor on 25-3-1991 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Professor w. e. f. 24-3-1996. Petitioner states that respondent/university has considered the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 by counting their service rendered outside the university. He therefore wants parity of treatment. His complaint is that his case was not considered. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY entered appearance and it justifies its stand. University states that the petitioner has not completed fifteen years of service in the case on hand. University has filed a counter stating that services rendered in the Junior College is not countable for the above purpose. University also says that action has been initiated to cancel the time bound promotion in respect of Respect No. 2 and it is found that time bound promotion in respect of respondent No. 3 is in order since he has served in degree colleges. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 2 and 3 filed a statement justifying their continuance by the university. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The only question that requires to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for time bound promotion in terms of the scheme. Annexure-C is the relevant notification with regard to time bound promotion from the cadre of Assistant Professor to the cadre of Associate Professor. The said notification provides for appointment to the cadre of Associate Professors through time bound promotion to those teachers in the cadre of Assistant Professors doing teaching, research and extension work with Ph. Annexure-C is the relevant notification with regard to time bound promotion from the cadre of Assistant Professor to the cadre of Associate Professor. The said notification provides for appointment to the cadre of Associate Professors through time bound promotion to those teachers in the cadre of Assistant Professors doing teaching, research and extension work with Ph. D and 12 years of experience or without Ph. D with 15 years of experience. In terms of the notification, a note has been provided in the matter of understanding the statute 30 (4-C ). In terms of note (2) experience includes and covers their unbroken casual service/temporary service/consolidated salary (excluding daily wages service) rendered by them in UAS, Bangalore, for the length of service for the purpose of giving effect to the benefit of time bound promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. Let me see as to whether the petitioner has 15 years of service in terms of the material on record. Admittedly, petitioner does not fulfill the condition of 15 years of service as rightly stated in annexure-G. His working outside the university in IIHR Bangalore, as Technical Assistant and Union Bank of India as Agricultural Development Officer, can not be counted for the purpose of 15 years experience in terms of the notification and in the light of Note to Statute 30 (4-C)-Annexure-C ). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any error whatsoever in the case on hand. ( 6 ) PETITIONER however, complains that he has not been given equal treatment as that of respondents 2 and 3 equal treatment as that of respondents 2 and 3. In this regard what is required to be noticed by this court is annexure-N dated 24-6-2002. In the said order it has been stated by the Administrative Officer that pursuant to the decision taken by the Board of Regents, petitioners request for time bound promotion as has been done in the case of respondents 2 and 3 cannot be considered as the University has initiated action to cancel the time bound promotion accorded to them to the cadre of Associate Professor in violation of statute 30 (4-C ). In the light of this categorical endorsement, it is unnecessary for this court to go into the comparative merit between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. In the light of this categorical endorsement, it is unnecessary for this court to go into the comparative merit between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. Petitioners parity argument requires to be rejected in the light of annexure-N. In the result, petition stands rejected. No costs. --- *** --- .