Judgment :- Petitioner entered service of the M.G. University as a Lecturer on 4-12-1987 in the faculty of School of Chemical Sciences. The third respondent joined the service of the University as Lecturer in the Department of Basic Medical Sciences on 20-2-1988. 2. On the basis of the notification No.1726/89/A11(1) Admn. Dated 4-1-1990, the University, through its Registrar, invited applications for appointment to, among other posts, one post of Reader in Bio-chemistry in the School of Basic Medical Sciences. That Selection of Dr. P. Harikumar was challenged by the third respondent by filing O.P.No.3080 of 1991. Though there was an interlocutory order in that case on C.M.P.No.5385 of 1991 directing that Dr. P. Harikumar is not to be admitted to the post of Reader in Bio-Chemistry, the selected candidate Dr. P. Harikumar ultimately reported that he is not willing to join the service as Reader in Bio-chemistry in the M.G. University. On record, by that time, was the counter affidavit of the University asserting its stand that the selection of Dr. P. Harikumar was in order. However, in view of the submission made before this Court on 1-6-1994 on behalf of Dr. P. Harikumar, who was the second respondent in O.P.3080 of 1991 that he is not willing to join the service as Reader, the original petition was treated as not surviving and was hence disposed of by judgment dated 1-6-1994, obviously, without entering into merits. The aforesaid facts relating to O.P.No.3080 of 1991 has been noticed from the file of that case forming part of the records of this Court. 3. The aforesaid would show that the selection of Dr. P. Harikumar in the interview held on 27-2-1991 was not interfered with by this Court and it therefore stood, however that, Dr. P. Harikumar did not join. This resulted in the occurrence of the situation where that vacancy remained unfilled. As already noticed, there was no select list of more candidates and Dr. P. Harikumar was the sole candidate selected for the post. This means that, there was no select list available to make any alternate appointment in the event of Dr. P. Harikumar’s failure to join duty. The vacancy thus not having been filled following the interview on 27-2-1991, the selection and appointment to that vacancy required to be done de novo. P. Harikumar was the sole candidate selected for the post. This means that, there was no select list available to make any alternate appointment in the event of Dr. P. Harikumar’s failure to join duty. The vacancy thus not having been filled following the interview on 27-2-1991, the selection and appointment to that vacancy required to be done de novo. There can be no doubt about this, formidable support to which can be found in the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma (JT 2001 (9) SC 266) and Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Delson Davis P (JT 2002 (2) SC 329). 4. Thereafter, the University conducted a selection on 21-6-1994 and the third respondent was selected and Ext.P3 appointment order dated 27-8-1994 was issued to him appointing him as Reader in Bio-Chemistry in the School of Bio-Sciences with effect from the forenoon of 28-7-1994, that is, the date on which he had assumed office of the Reader following letter dated 28-7-1994 issued immediately after the Syndicate had considered and resolved on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. By Ext.P3 order, he was also put on probation for a period of one year in terms of the University laws. Thus, for all intends and purposes, the third respondent became a Reader only with effect from 27-8-1994. 5. It appears that, thereafter the third respondent made representations and the University, by different orders, granted him service benefits retrospectively from the date on which Dr. P. Harikumar was selected and appointed following the Syndicate decision dated 18-3-1991. The net result of the action of the University is that, though selected and appointed as Reader and put on probation only with effect from 27-8-1994, as per Ext.P3, the third respondent started enjoying certain benefits retrospectively from 18-3-1991, that is, the date on which Dr. P. Harikumar was appointed. It has to be immediately noticed that even if this Court had set aside Dr. P. Harikumar’s selection in O.P.No.3080 of 1991, that could not have resulted in the consequence of the petitioner being appointed as against that vacancy without an further selection process. This is because, the petitioner did not find himself in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, which recommended Dr. P. Harikumar for appointment as Reader. P. Harikumar’s selection in O.P.No.3080 of 1991, that could not have resulted in the consequence of the petitioner being appointed as against that vacancy without an further selection process. This is because, the petitioner did not find himself in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, which recommended Dr. P. Harikumar for appointment as Reader. Therefore, in terms of the Constitution of India and the laws, in particular, the University laws, there was no room, rhyme or reason to extend any benefit to the third respondent by retrospectively giving him benefits from 18-3-1991 in a matter relating to public appointment. 6. In so far as the petitioner, who belongs to the faculty of School of Medical Sciences, is concerned, the relevance of those benefits given to the third respondent germinated only when the question of placement in the category of Professors came for consideration. The petitioner who earlier joined the services of the University as Lecturer and was appointed as Reader in the UGC Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 1-11-1991 was promoted as Professor only with effect from 30-7-1996 though the third respondent who entered the service of the University only on 20-2-1998, that is, after the petitioner and who became a Reader only on 27-8-1994 as per Ext.P3 order was promoted as Professor with effect from 30-7-1996, that is, before such promotion of the petitioner as Professor with effect from 24-3-1998. The petitioner represented about this illegality to the University. Though the University has filed a statement in this case at the initial stage, stating that the complaint of the petitioner is gaining attention of the University, no further pleadings are placed regarding any action taken or decision arrived at by the University. 7. Having regard to the fact that the third respondent’s entitlement to be treated as a Reader is only with effect from 27-8-1994, the question that immediately arises is as to whether the benefits that the University gave the third respondent retrospectively from 18-3-1991 can affect the competing rights of the petitioner. The total length of service is the determining factor for being brought to the category of Professor. The total length of service is the determining factor for being brought to the category of Professor. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 S.C.C. 416], the period of experience in a post for eligibility for a further promotion has to be computed from the date of actual promotion and not from any retrospective date, even if the order of promotion to an intermediate post is made effective from a retrospective date. Profitable reference in this regard can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in K. Madhavan v. Union of India [(1987) 4 S.C.C. 566]. Hence, any benefit given to the third respondent by the University by giving any retrospective benefit to the appointment made as per Ext.P3 to the category of Reader, cannot work to the disadvantage of the petitioner, while determining the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the third respondent in the category of Professors. In the result, this writ petition is allowed declaring that the seniority between the petitioner and the third respondent in the category of Professor has to be on the basis of the placement of the third respondent in the category of a Reader with effect from 27-8-1994 as per Ext.P3 decision and any retrospective effect given for such appointment for any purpose shall, in no way, affect the claim of the petitioner as senior to the third respondent in the category of Professor. The impugned Exts.P4, P5 and P6, to the extent they run contrary to the declaration granted above, stand quashed. No costs.