( 1 ) THE questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether the past uninterrupted service of the petitioner from 10. 1. 1981 to 2. 2. 1987 added by the University under G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992, in his length of service by order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 3. 1. 1995 could be reopened directly or indirectly? Whether the petitioner became eligible for promotion as Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme on 3. 2. 1995 and he is entitled to be promoted as Reader from the date when other lecturers were promoted as all of them were recommended for promotion on 8. 3. 1999 by the same selection committee or from some other date? Whether the resolution dated 27. 3. 1999 of the Executive Council of the University that the benefit of earlier services enumerated in the G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992 would not be admissible prior to completion of probation is in accordance with law and can be applied to petitioner? ( 2 ) THE facts as disclosed in the petition are brief. But to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner we sent for the records which were produced by the learned council for the University. Some of the facts that are material in the order have been taken from the records and the report filed by the University as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner a first division m. Sc. after completing Ph. D. was appointed, on 2. 1. 1981 after regular selection as temporary lecturer in Botany, in the regular pay scale of lecturer in Sri Jai Narain Degree College, ,lucknow, where he worked continuously from 10. 1. 1981 to 30. 4. 1982. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed as Research Associate under the Director, Department of Plant pathology, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, which is a Scientific/research organisation under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR ). He worked as such from 1. 5. 1982 to 2. 2. 1987. The post of Research Associate held by the petitioner was equivalent to Scientist-B in the pay scale of lecturer. The petitioner was selected by regular selection committee and recommended for appointment on 18. 4. 1986 as temporary lecturer in Botany department, University of Allahabad (in brief the University) which was approved by the chancellor on 28. 1. 1987. He was appointed on 30. 1. The petitioner was selected by regular selection committee and recommended for appointment on 18. 4. 1986 as temporary lecturer in Botany department, University of Allahabad (in brief the University) which was approved by the chancellor on 28. 1. 1987. He was appointed on 30. 1. 1987 and he joined on 2. 2. 1987. He was granted substantive appointment as lecturer w. e. f. 2. 2. 1988 under Section 31 (3) (b) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in brief the Act) and was confirmed after completion of probation with effect from 2. 2. 1989. ( 3 ) IN 1992 the State Government issued a G. O. on 3 (3. 6. 1992 on the subject of granting selection grade/senior scale to the lecturers of universities and degree colleges under Career Advancement scheme. It provided that benefit of past services by a lecturer could be given for purposes of senior scale, provided that such lecturers had worked continuously and uninterruptedly and satisfied conditions mentioned in the order. The petitioner on 18. 3. 1993 made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor that he having satisfied the conditions of the Government Order was entitled for placement in senior scale. This was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor on 3. 1. 1995 and he was placed in senior scale after getting his claim processed by the selection committee and screening committee. ( 4 ) THE G. O. dated 7. 1. 1989 provided that a lecturer would be eligible for promotion as Reader after eight years in the senior scale or thirteen year as lecturer. The petitioner having been placed in senior scale with effect from 3. 2. 1987 became eligible for promotion as Reader under the career Advancement Scheme on 3. 2. 1995. But he was not invited by the University when selection for Reader was held in October 1995. The next selection was to be held in 1999. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation and ultimately an order was passed permitting him to appear before selection committee on 8. 3. 1999. An order was passed on 3. 7. 2003 granting him readership from the date of his eligibility. But this order was withdrawn on 11. 8. 2003 and the petitioner was placed in senior scale with effect from 3. 2. 1989 and he was held to be eligible for the post of Reader from 3. 2. 1997. 3. 1999. An order was passed on 3. 7. 2003 granting him readership from the date of his eligibility. But this order was withdrawn on 11. 8. 2003 and the petitioner was placed in senior scale with effect from 3. 2. 1989 and he was held to be eligible for the post of Reader from 3. 2. 1997. In the counter affidavit it is termed as a correction order. This order is based on a report submitted by the committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor. The report in detail narrates the events from the date of petitioners appointment as lecturer in 1981 till the date he was given senior scale and then readership and finally the reason for withdrawing it and granting him readership in Career Advancement Scheme from 2. 2. 1997 instead of 2. 2. 1995. What appears from the report filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit that when the petitioner was not invited for appearing before selection committee in 1995 he applied to be considered for promotion as Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme in the next Selection Committee notified for 8. 3. 1999. On the recommendation dated 6. 34999 of the preliminary Screening Committee that had been constituted by the Executive Council the vice-chancellor granted provisional permission to the petitioner to appear before the Selection committee on 8. 3. 1999 on the condition that legal opinion would be obtained on his eligibility and the recommendations of the Selection Committee would be considered by the Executive council only in the light of such legal opinion. The petitioner appeared before the Selection committee on 8. 3. 1999 and was recommended for selection as Reader. His case was placed before the Executive Council along with the sealed legal opinion of the counsel for the university, which was opened in the meeting of the Executive Council held on 27. 3. 1999. The executive Council noted that the legal opinion placed before it had not considered the important fact that the earlier services of the petitioner had already been recognized by the University for grant of senior scale, therefore, it resolved that a fresh legal opinion be obtained from a designated University counsel and the matter be placed along with legal opinion at the next meeting But it was obtained after about 21 months on 30. 1. 2001. 1. 2001. This time the legal opinion was to the effect that the petitioner may be considered for Readership by way of personal promotion in pursuance of his interview held on 8. 3,1999. ( 5 ) THE matter was placed before the Executive Council, which by resolution No. 71 dated 4. 3. 2001 resolved that the recommendations of the Selection Committee be approved and the petitioner be appointed Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme in the department of botany from the date of his eligibility. An appointment letter dated 8. 3. 2001 was issued and the petitioner joined as Reader on the same day. However, the Registrar withdrew the appointment letter on 17. 3. 2001 on the ground that the Executive Council was not empowered to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee after lapse of four months from the date of selection. The recommendations were submitted on 24. 3. 2001 to the Chancellor. The Chancellor passed an order on 16. 4. 2001 that the matter of promotion of the petitioner be placed afresh before the Executive Council for consideration and decision. The petitioners matter was again placed before the Executive Council which by resolution No. 83 dated 26. 5. 2001 approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee and resolved that the petitioner be appointed under the Career Advancement Scheme in the department of Botany. The Registrar issued appointment letter on 28. 5. 2001 appointing the petitioner as Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme w. e. f. the date of joining. The petitioner joined on the same date, i. e. 28. 5. 2001. ( 6 ) THE petitioner after joining as Reader made a representation on 27. 6. 2001 to the vice-Chancellor, protesting the condition imposed in the order of promotion, "from the date of joining" and requested that promotion be accorded from the date of eligibility. The vice-chancellor referred the petitioners representation to the Registrar with a direction that it may be considered exactly as per rules. The office note dated 8,7. 2001 mentioned that since the executive Council had specifically decided on 4. 5. 2001 to grant promotion from the date of eligibility, but had not given any direction on the effective date of promotion on 2,6. 5. 2001, it would be appropriate to follow the earlier specific resolution and grant promotion from the date of eligibility. But no order was passed. 5. 2001 to grant promotion from the date of eligibility, but had not given any direction on the effective date of promotion on 2,6. 5. 2001, it would be appropriate to follow the earlier specific resolution and grant promotion from the date of eligibility. But no order was passed. ( 7 ) SINCE nothing happened the petitioner submitted reminders on 21. 9. 2001, 22. 11. 2001 and 8. 1. 2002 for expeditious disposal of his representations. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee to look into -the representation and submit its report. The Committee submitted its report on 20. 6. 2002 to the effect that; the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed in senior scale w. e. f. 3. 2. 1989, the date of his confirmation as lecturer, and to have completed eight years in the senior scale on 3. 2. 1997; the petitioner be placed in the selection grade, (i. e. Readers pay scale) from the date of his eligibility for the same, i. e. 3. 2. 1997; the promotion of the petitioner as Reader in the department of Botany be made effective from 3. 2. 1997 (the date of his eligibility); the recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner in the context of his placement in the senior scale (under the earlier rule and policy) for the period from 3. 2. 1987 to 2. 2. 1989 be recovered only when such recovery is being made from all other teachers who were granted senior scale or selection grade (on the basis of earlier services) from a date prior to their confirmation in the University. ( 8 ) THE report of the Committee dated 20. 6. 2002 was placed at the meeting of Executive Council on 3. 11. 2002 which by resolution No. 69. 2 (3) took a decision that since the matter of the petitioner involves financial implications, therefore, in view of the order of the Chancellor the matter be placed for consideration before the committee. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee to examine the matter which in its meeting on 5. 2. 2003 approved the earlier report dated 20. 6. 2002 of the Committee, and recommended that the petitioner may be granted senior scale of Lecturer/reader from the date of his eligibility. This report of the Committee was placed before the executive council on 8. 3. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee to examine the matter which in its meeting on 5. 2. 2003 approved the earlier report dated 20. 6. 2002 of the Committee, and recommended that the petitioner may be granted senior scale of Lecturer/reader from the date of his eligibility. This report of the Committee was placed before the executive council on 8. 3. 2003 and by resolution No. 215 the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme w. e. f. the date of his eligibility, i. e. 3. 2. 1995. The Vice-Chancellor passed an order on 30. 6. 2003/3. 7. 2003 granting pay scale of reader to the petitioner under the Career Advancement Scheme w. e. f. 3. 2. 1995, the date of his eligibility for the post of Reader. But this order was Withdrawn and the Vice-Chancellor passed another order on 8/11. 8. 2003 rectifying his earlier order dated 3. 8. 2003 and the petitioner was granted pay scale of Reader after completion of the probationary period from 2. 2. 1997 instead of 3. 2. 1995. It is this order dated 8/11. 8. 2003 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the University has produced the service records of the petitioner and Dr. D. K. Chauhan, Dr. Manju Sahney, Dr. S. C. Agrawal, the three lecturers who too were recommended for promotion as Reader along with petitioner. They were, however, promoted as they had put in thirteen years of service as lecturer. We have examined their records as well as other relevant records with the help of Sri P. S. Bahel. Dr. D. K. Chauhan was appointed and worked as short term temporary lecturer with effect from 16. 12. 19r3 in the department of Botany. He was again appointed w. e. f. 16. 3. 1984 under Section 13 (6) read with 13 (8) of the Act for a period upto 15. 6. 1984 or till an appointment is made through regular statutory selection committee, whichever was earlier. The Registrar issued a letter on 11. 12. 1991 to him that the Executive Council at its meeting on 8. 12. 3. 1984 under Section 13 (6) read with 13 (8) of the Act for a period upto 15. 6. 1984 or till an appointment is made through regular statutory selection committee, whichever was earlier. The Registrar issued a letter on 11. 12. 1991 to him that the Executive Council at its meeting on 8. 12. 1991 had taken into account the period of service rendered by him as short term/temporary lecturer in the University as probationary period, and had confirmed him as lecturer in the department of Botany w. e. f. 22. 11. 1991. The registrar on 27. 3. 1999 had informed him that the Executive Council in its meeting on 27. 3. 1999 had granted post of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from the date of his initial eligibility, i. e. 16. 12. 1996 (in anticipation of approval of the executive council ). It appears that he was granted promotion to the post of Reader in pursuance to the recommendation made on 8. 3. 1999 by the Selection Committee as he had completed 13 years uninterrupted service from 16. 12. 1983 to 16. 12. 1996. ( 10 ) DR. Manju Midha, later Dr. Manju Sahney was appointed as temporary lecturer in the department of Botany w. e. f. 16. 12. 1983 under Section 13 (6) read with 13 (8) of the Act for a period upto 15. 3. 1984 till an appointment was made through a regular statutory selection committee. She was appointed from time to time in similar manner on 5. 4,1984 till 15. 6. 1984, 6. 7. 1984 till 15. 9. 1984 which was extended till 2. 0. 11. 1984. The Registrar issued a letter dated 20/24. 11. 1984 that services of Dr. Manju Midha as ad hoc lecturer would no longer be required from the afternoon of 30. 11. 1984. She was recommended by the selection committee on 18. 4. 1986 for appointment which was approved by Chancellor on 28. 1. 1987. She was appointed on 30. 1. 1987 and she joined on the same day as temporary lecturer in the department of Botany. She was appointed substantively as lecturer w. e. f. 30. 1. 1988 under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act on a probation of one year. The Registrar on 18. 4. 1. 1987. She was appointed on 30. 1. 1987 and she joined on the same day as temporary lecturer in the department of Botany. She was appointed substantively as lecturer w. e. f. 30. 1. 1988 under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act on a probation of one year. The Registrar on 18. 4. 1993 informed her that on the recommendation of the selection committee (screening committee) the Executive Council at its meeting on 17. 4. 1993 had placed her in senior scale of lecturer in Botany department w. e. f. 16. 12. 1988. The registrar on 27. 3. 1999 had informed her that the Executive Council in its meeting on 27. 3. 1999 had granted post of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from the date of her eligibility, i. e. 16. 12. 1996 (in anticipation of approval of the executive council ). It appears that she was granted promotion to the post of Reader in pursuance to the recommendation made on 8. 3. 1999 by the Selection Committee as she had completed 13 years uninterrupted service from 6. 12. 1983 to 16. 12. 1996. ( 11 ) DR. S. C. Agrawal was appointed as temporary lecturer on 16. 12. 1983 by the Vice-Chancellor in the department of Botany under Section 13 (6) read with Section 13 (8) of the Act w. e. f. 16. 12. 1983 to 15. 3. 1984 or till an appointment was made through a regular statutory selection committee whichever was earlier. He was appointed from time to time in similar manner from 16. 3. 1984 to 15. 6. 1984, then from 16. 6. 1984 to 15. 9. 1984, from 16. 9. 1984 to 30. 11. 1984, and from 1. 11. 1984 to 30. 4. 1985. The Registrar issued a letter dated 20/25. 11. 1984 that services of dr. S. C. Agrawal as ad hoc lecturer would no longer be required from the afternoon of 30. 11. 1984. He was appointed, by letter dated 10. 5. 1986, under Section 13 (6) read with Section 13 (8) of the Act w. e. f. 1. 5. 1986 for a period of six months. The Registrar on 25. 1. 1992 informed him that the Executive Council at its meeting held on 8. 12. 1991 had appointed him as lecturer substantively w. e. f. 18. 4. 5. 1986, under Section 13 (6) read with Section 13 (8) of the Act w. e. f. 1. 5. 1986 for a period of six months. The Registrar on 25. 1. 1992 informed him that the Executive Council at its meeting held on 8. 12. 1991 had appointed him as lecturer substantively w. e. f. 18. 4. 1989 under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act, after having been selected through statutory selection committee. He was put on probationary period of one year from the date of his substantive appointment viz. , 18. 4. 1989. The Executive Council: on 18. 1. 1992 confirmed him w. e. f. 18. 4. 1990. On 13. 8. 1993 he was granted senior scale of lecturer w. e. f. 16. 12. 1988. The Registrar on 27. 3. 1999 had informed him that the Executive Council in its meeting on 27. 3. 1999 had granted post of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from the date of his initial eligibility, i. e. 16. 12. 1996 (in anticipation of approval of the executive council ). It appears that he was granted promotion to the post of Reader in pursuance to the recommendation made on 8. 3. 1999 joy the Selection Committee as he had completed 13 years uninterrupted service from 16. 12. 1983 to 16. 12. 1996. ( 12 ) WE have mentioned in detail the date of appointment of these lecturers, their confirmation etc. to demonstrate that they were promoted from the category of lecturer, the other source of promotion. under Career Advancement Scheme. The University in all these cases counted the period of service from the date of initial appointment as temporary lecturers and not from the date of confirmation. ( 13 ) WE have heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, holding brief of Sri A. B. L. Gaur learned senior counsel appearing for the University. ( 14 ) THE question arises for consideration is what is the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner? In service law jurisprudence normally a post could be temporary or permanent. If a person is appointed after selection under the service rules either on temporary or permanent post then such appointment is known as an appointment on substantive basis. A person could be appointed on probation only when a substantive appointment is made against an available post. In service law jurisprudence normally a post could be temporary or permanent. If a person is appointed after selection under the service rules either on temporary or permanent post then such appointment is known as an appointment on substantive basis. A person could be appointed on probation only when a substantive appointment is made against an available post. It is open to the employer to confirm an employee after expiry of the probation period or to discharge him during or at the end of the probationary period. If an employee is confirmed after successful completion of probation period, then the probationary period could, not be excluded and has to be counted for the purposes of seniority and length of service. ( 15 ) THE Apex Court in Baleshwar Dass and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , AIR1981 SC 41 , 1980 Lablc1155 , (1981)I LLJ140 SC , (1980)4 SCC226 , [1981 ]1 SCR449 1981 (1)SLJ223 (SC) has held as under: ". . . persons who are not permanently appointed but only temporarily appointed are also placed on probation and officers are not put on probation unless they are on their way to membership in the service on completion of probation. That is to say, although they are temporary appointees, if their probation is completed and other formalities fulfilled, they become members of the Service. It follows that merely because the person is a temporary appointee it cannot be said that he is not substantively appointed if he fulfils the necessary conditions for regular appointment such as probation and consultation with the Public Service Commission etc. From this stand of the State government it follows that the temporary appointees, whose appointments have received the approval of the Public Service Commission and who have run out the two years of probation, must be deemed to be appointed in a substantive capacity. " ( 16 ) IN another decision a Constitution Bench of the apex court in The Direct Recruit Class-II engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , AIR1990 SC 1607 , (1990)92 BOMLR360 , [1990 (60)FLR918 ], JT1990 (2)SC 264 , 1990 (2)Karlj73 , 1990 (1)SCALE839 , (1990)2 SCC715 , [1990 ]2 SCR900 , 1990 (2)SLJ40 (SC), 1990 (2)UJ314 (SC), (1990)2 UPLBEC833 in paragraph 13 has laid down as below, "13. , AIR1990 SC 1607 , (1990)92 BOMLR360 , [1990 (60)FLR918 ], JT1990 (2)SC 264 , 1990 (2)Karlj73 , 1990 (1)SCALE839 , (1990)2 SCC715 , [1990 ]2 SCR900 , 1990 (2)SLJ40 (SC), 1990 (2)UJ314 (SC), (1990)2 UPLBEC833 in paragraph 13 has laid down as below, "13. When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhans case AIR1977 SC 2051 , 1977 lablc1367 , (1977)3 SCC399 , [1977 ]3 SCR775 , 1977 (1)SLJ457 (SC) was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a Government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of Government services depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to conform to the principles of equality spelt out by Articles 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stop-gap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without following the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of a regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be, to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. Same will be the position if the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. This principle has been followed in innumerable cases and has been further elaborated by this Court in several judgments including those in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U. P. , AIR1981 SC 41 , 1980 Lablc1155 , (1981)I LLJ140 SC , (1980)4 SCC226 , [1981 ]1 SCR449 , 1981 (1)SLJ223 (SC), and Delhi Water Supply and sewage Disposal Committee v. R. K. Kashyap, AIR1989 SC 278 , jt1988 (4)SC 421 , (1989)I LLJ171 SC , 1988 (2)SCALE1390 , 1989 Supp (1)SCC194 , [1988 ]supp3 SCR633 , 1989 (1)UJ8 (SC), with which we are in agreement. In Narender Chadha v. Union of India, AIR1986 SC 638 , [1986 (52)FLR403 ], 1986 (1)SCALE154 , (1986)2 SCC157 , [1986 ]1 SCR211 , 1986 (2)SLJ287 (SC), 1986 (1)UJ728 (SC), the officers were promoted although without following the procedure prescribed under the rules, but they continuously worked for long periods of nearly 15-20 years on the posts without being reverted. The period of their continuous officiation was directed to be counted for seniority as it was held that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. There is considerable force in this view also. We, therefore, confirm the principle of counting towards seniority the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the service. " ( 17 ) THE Court further held in paragraph 44 as below, " (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. " ( 18 ) AT this juncture it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 31 (3) (b) of the act as under: 31. " ( 18 ) AT this juncture it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 31 (3) (b) of the act as under: 31. (3) (b) Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a Selection Committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is "subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such posts subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post of same cadre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department, then unless the Executive Council or the management, as the case may be, decides to terminate his services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee; provided that this clause shall not apply unless the teacher concerned holds the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of such substantive appointment, and he has served continuously, for a period of not less than one year after his appointment made after reference to a Selection Committee: provided further that appointment is a substantive capacity under this clause of a teacher who had served, before such appointment, continuously for a period of less than two years, shall be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) shall apply accordingly. " ( 19 ) NOW coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed in the University on 3. 2. 1987 after reference to a statutory selection committee constituted under Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act as temporary lecturer. While continuing as such a permanent post of lecturer became available therefore, the University appointed the petitioner under Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act as lecturer on 2. 2. 1988 in substantive capacity and he was placed on probation on 2. 2. 1988 for a period of one year. On expiry of aforesaid period of probation he was confirmed on the aforesaid post on 3. 2. 1989. 2. 1988 in substantive capacity and he was placed on probation on 2. 2. 1988 for a period of one year. On expiry of aforesaid period of probation he was confirmed on the aforesaid post on 3. 2. 1989. ( 20 ) NOW the question that arises for consideration is as to what would be the effect of such appointment and confirmation on the post of lecturer on 3. 2. 1989 particularly in reference to period of service rendered by the petitioner w. e. f. 3. 2. 1987 to 2. 2. 1988, before his appointment in substantive capacity. And w. e. f. 2. 2. 1988 to 3. 2. 1989, i. e. before his confirmation and as to whether the aforesaid period of service rendered by the petitioner from the date of initial appointment to the date of his confirmation would be counted towards his length of service or for the purpose of seniority and other benefits including the grant of scale in senior lecturers grade and grant of promotion to the post of Reader or not? In this regard it is necessary to be pointed out that the initial appointment of petitioner on the post of lecturer was made in the University on 3. 2. 1987 after reference to a regular selection committee constituted under the Act meaning thereby after holding regular selection according to the provisions of Act as prescribed for regular appointment in substantive capacity but it appears that at the time of such appointment, substantive vacancy against a permanent post of lecturer was not available and as such his appointment was made as temporary lecturer. While continuously working as such after expiry of a period of one year, when a substantive vacancy against the permanent post became available, the appointment of the petitioner was made under the provisions of Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act as lecturer in substantive capacity on 2. 2. 1988 without any further reference to the selection committee and he was placed on probation for a period of one year. After successful completion of aforesaid period of one year he has been confirmed on the post of lecturer on 3. 2. 1989. At this juncture it is noteworthy that while making such appointment of the petitioner in substantive capacity on 2. 2. After successful completion of aforesaid period of one year he has been confirmed on the post of lecturer on 3. 2. 1989. At this juncture it is noteworthy that while making such appointment of the petitioner in substantive capacity on 2. 2. 1988, no reference to selection committee was required to be made under the provisions of the Act rather, his continuity of service in the capacity of temporary lecturer at the strength of his initial selection and appointment and availability of vacancy subsequently on a permanent post of lecturer in the University enabled the University authorities to make his appointment in substantive capacity with effect from 2. 2. 1988, without undergoing again any regular process of selection through regular selection committee. Thus the provisions of law has fully acknowledged and recognised his initial selection as a regular selection and continuity of his service at the strength of his aforesaid appointment based on aforesaid selection as such the same cannot be excluded from consideration for any other consequential purposes like computation towards length of service and seniority on the post in question for the simple reason that such service cannot be termed as ad hoc as known in service jurisprudence, if initial appointment is made after holding regular selection but having regard to scheme underlying in the provisions of the Act no substantive appointment could be given to the selectee on account of lack of permanent vacancy and appointment given only against temporary consequential benefits of service arising therefrom. Similarly, after successfully completing the aforesaid period of probation, the petitioner was confirmed on the aforesaid post of lecturer on 3. 2. 1989. As such the services rendered by the petitioner w. e. f. 2. 2. 1988 till his confirmation can also not be excluded for computing his length of service and seniority, in view of law laid down by the, apex court that confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government services depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of the substantive vacancies. The learned counsel for the respondent University did not point out any provision in this regard either under the provisions of the Act or Statutes of the University so as to persuade us to take different and contrary view in the matter. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that since initial appointment of petitioner on 3. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent University did not point out any provision in this regard either under the provisions of the Act or Statutes of the University so as to persuade us to take different and contrary view in the matter. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that since initial appointment of petitioner on 3. 2. 1987 was made after reference to a regular selection committee constituted under the provisions of Act for holding regular selection and after regular selection but he has been continuing as temporary lecturer till he was given appointment in substantive capacity on 2. 2. 1988 thereafter placed on probation for a period of one year and confirmed on 3. 2. 1989. Hence, uninterrupted continuous services rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment till his confirmation cannot be excluded from consideration for the purpose of computation of length of service and seniority on the post of lecturer in as much as for other consequential benefits of service. ( 21 ) NOW the next question is whether the. past uninterrupted service of the petitioner from 10. 1. 1981 to 2. 2. 1987 added by the University under G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992, in his length of service by order of the Vice--Chancellor dated 3. 1. 1995 could be reopened directly or indirectly? we have already seen earlier that after the government issued the order on 30. 6. 1992 for placing a lecturer in senior scale provided he satisfied the requirements mentioned in the order. On the representation of petitioner he was granted senior scale from 3. 2. 1987. The grant of senior scale was based on G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992. There is no error in it. The order dated 3. 1,1995 could not be altered directly or indirectly. Even the committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on representation of petitioner observed in paragraph E-13 (l) of its report filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit that, "the placement of Dr. Dixit in the senior scale with effect from 3. 2. 1987 was fully in accordance with the rules and policy as they stood on. the date (03. 01. 1995) of the Order of the vice-chancellor to that effect. Under the provisions of CAS in force at that time, Dr. Dixit in the senior scale with effect from 3. 2. 1987 was fully in accordance with the rules and policy as they stood on. the date (03. 01. 1995) of the Order of the vice-chancellor to that effect. Under the provisions of CAS in force at that time, Dr. Anupam dixit became eligible for placement in the Selection Grade (i. e. Readers Scale) and for promotion as Reader upon eight years from the date of placement in the Senior Scale, i. e. from 03. 02. 1995. " ( 22 ) IF the grant of senior scale and its natural consequence was correct and in accordance with rules in 1995, it could not be altered or amended by a subsequent resolution passed by the executive Council of the University on 27. 3. 1999. ( 23 ) THE State Government issued a notification on 7. 1. 1989 by which the Career Advancement scheme was framed by the State Government under the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 which was applicable to all the Universities and its affiliated colleges. It provided for senior scale of lecturers and how promotion was to be made on the post of Reader. It also provided for qualifying service of five years as lecturer for awarding senior scale. And eight years service as lecturer in the senior pay scale to become eligible for promotion to the post of Reader. It very clearly provided that the service rendered by a lecturer in ad hoc capacity shall not be counted for determining the eligibility for senior scale of lecturer or for the post of Reader. In pursuance of this scheme the petitioner along with Dr. D. K. Chauhan, Dr. Manju Sahney and Dr. S. K. Agrawal appeared before the Selection Committee on 8. 3,1999 for promotion to the post of reader as according to the University the petitioner and other teachers were eligible for promotion to the post of Reader. The petitioner as per the order of the University dated 4. 4. 1995 had completed eight years service in. senior scale of lecturer on 3. 2. 1995. The University by order dated 3. 1. 1995 had added past service of the petitioner from 10. 1. 1981 to 2. 2. 1987. Thus, the petitioner completed five years service as lecturer prior to 2. 2. 1987 and became eligible for senior scale of lecturer on 3. 2. 1987. senior scale of lecturer on 3. 2. 1995. The University by order dated 3. 1. 1995 had added past service of the petitioner from 10. 1. 1981 to 2. 2. 1987. Thus, the petitioner completed five years service as lecturer prior to 2. 2. 1987 and became eligible for senior scale of lecturer on 3. 2. 1987. The University granted senior scale of lecturer to the petitioner with effect from 3. 2. 1987, therefore, the petitioner had completed eight years service in senior pay scale of lecturer on 2. 2. 1995 and became eligible for promotion to the post of reader. The University had passed an order to the effect that the petitioner having completed eight years of service in senior scale of lecturer on 3. 2. 1995, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Reader and he was rightly selected by the Selection Committee on 8. 3. 1999 for the post of Reader. The order dated 3. 1. 1995 granting senior scale to the petitioner being in accordance with rules, could not be modified subsequently. We do not propose to enter into the question whether such a resolution being contrary to well settled principle of service law as has been explained by us is liable to be ignored. But we are of the opinion that it could not apply to the petitioner. Promotion as Reader requires eligibility and satisfactory work. The former was determined as far back as 1995. Even the two committees constituted by the Vice-chancellor as mentioned earlier held that petitioners placement in senior scale was in accordance with rules. ( 24 ) THE last question is whether the resolution dated 27. 3. 1999 of the Executive Council of the university that the benefit of earlier services enumerated in the G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992 would not be admissible prior to completion of probation is in accordance with law and can be applied to petitioner? Relying on it, the order granting senior scale to the petitioner was altered from 3. 2. 1987 to 3. 2. 1989. The effect of it was that the period of eight years for promotion as Reader was counted from this date, thus, the date of eligibility for promotion was pushed down from 3. 2. 1995 to 3. 2. 1997. This was not in accordance with law. The G. O. dated 30. 6. 2. 1987 to 3. 2. 1989. The effect of it was that the period of eight years for promotion as Reader was counted from this date, thus, the date of eligibility for promotion was pushed down from 3. 2. 1995 to 3. 2. 1997. This was not in accordance with law. The G. O. dated 30. 6. 1992 was issued amending the conditions of eligibility of a lecturer for senior scale/selection grade for purposes of availing benefit of Career Advancement Scheme framed on 7. 1. 1989. The order did not any where mention that the past services of a lecturer shall not be admissible prior to completion of probation. Further once the petitioner successfully completed his probation, it shall relate back to the date of appointment as held by the apex court in decisions referred earlier. Apart from it the executive Council for the reasons best known to it, counted probationary period and services rendered as termporary lecturer of the aforesaid three teachers in their total length of service and appointed them as Reader whereas in the matter of the petitioner the probationary period and services rendered as temporary lecturer was not counted in his total length of service. In our opinion, the petitioner having already completed his probation period successfully and having been confirmed, he was granted pay scale of senior lecturer by counting his five years past uninterrupted services in other institutions to his credit vide order dated 3. 1. 1995 passed by the university authorities as contemplated by the G. O. Dated 30. 6. 1992. Besides this, it is also nowhere case of the University that the aforesaid past services rendered by the petitioner in other institutions were ad hoc services rather the University authorities found it fully in accordance with law. This could not be reopened by a subsequent resolution passed in 1999. While computing the length of service on the post of lecturer the University, the petitioners period of probation on the post of lecturer and services rendered as temporary lecturer had wrongly been excluded by the University. This act of the University does not find support from any Statute, or well settled principles of service jurisprudence. While computing the length of service on the post of lecturer the University, the petitioners period of probation on the post of lecturer and services rendered as temporary lecturer had wrongly been excluded by the University. This act of the University does not find support from any Statute, or well settled principles of service jurisprudence. Thus, the services rendered by the petitioner as temporary lecturer as well as a probationer on the post of lecturer cannot be termed as ad hoc and cannot be excluded for computing length of his service either for determination of seniority as lecturer or for any other benefit available to him on account of his aforesaid services otherwise, computation of his past services rendered in other institutions would be rendered meaningless. Once the University is not disputing the past services rendered by the petitioner in other institutions while computing his length of service in the University, and granting benefits of senior lecturer scale, in that event, the University cannot stop the natural consequences of the aforesaid computation of his past services in other institutions while granting the benefits of pay scale in Readers grade and his promotion on the post of Reader. ( 25 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 8/11. 8. 2003 annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits of service as Reader with effect from 3. 2. 1995 and the entire payments including arrears of salary as Reader from 3. 2. 1995 shall be made by the University within a period of three months from today. ( 26 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. . .