Judgment : Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the order of the first respondent in his Ref.No.435/Est 2/98-99/6366 dated 22.01.1999 and quash the same and also direct the respondents to give retrospective promotion to the petitioner herein from 10.06.1993 as Reader. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent Syndicate Resolution dated 20.03.1999 Item No.655/99 SY III in so far as it relates to appointing the 3rd respondent as Dean incharge of the faculty of Tamil Indian Languages, Rural Arts from 26. 1999 and as Head incharge of Tamil Department and permitting the petitioner to continue upto 21.06.1999 as Dean incharge of the said Faculty and Head incharge of Tamil Department and quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Dean incharge of the faculty of Tamil Indian Languages and Rural Arts and Head incharge of Tamil department. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the orders passed by the first respondent herein in Ref.1787/Deans/Act 1999-2000 dated 21.06.1999 and quash the same and also direct the respondents to implement the resolution passed by the Syndicate Resolution No.655/99 SY III dated 20.03.1999.) The petitioner in W.P.No.6243 of 1999 was appointed as a Reader in the Faculty of Tamil, Indian Languages and Rural Arts, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Gandhgram, which is a deemed University. The petitioner was holding the post of lecturer and when the open advertisement was made for the post of Reader, he also applied for the same and got his appointment as a Reader in the University. In the present writ petition, he seeks for a direction that since in the year 1993 itself, the post became vacant and vacancies were considered, his appointment should date back 10.06.1993 and not 22.01.1999. Such a direction cannot be countenanced by this Court. In the present writ petition, he seeks for a direction that since in the year 1993 itself, the post became vacant and vacancies were considered, his appointment should date back 10.06.1993 and not 22.01.1999. Such a direction cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioner having been selected in a direct recruitment made pursuant to an open advertisement, he cannot claim to have an anterior date than that of the actual selection and such a direction will be in violation of the decision taken by the University and hence the writ petition No.6243 of 1999 is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. 2. In W.P.No.10323 of 1999, the petitioner is one Dr. M. Kuruvammal, who is functioning as a Reader under the Career Promotion Scheme and when the Syndicate passed a resolution No.655 of 1999 making the third respondent Dr.Pitchai as a Dean incharge upto 21.06.1999 in the department, the same was challenged by her and an interim order was granted by this Court on 13.08.1999, which was made absolute on 212. 2002. In that interim order, it was noted that neither Dr. M. Kuruvammal nor Dr.Pitchai were Dean as on the date of the order and therefore status-quo was to be maintained with reference to the Head of the Department. It is stated that Dr. M. Kuruvammal has been continuing as the Head of the department and she will continue as head of the department until further orders. 3. Subsequently when the University informed Dr. Pitchai that Dr. M. Kuruvammal will be continuing as the Head Incharge of the department of Tamil and Dean Incharge of the Faculty of Tamil from 22.06.1999 till the ensuing Syndicate takes a final decision on the matter, challenging the order passed by the Syndicate, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.12035 of 1999, by Dr.A.Pitchai, which was admitted on 14.07.1999. But however, no interim order was granted in his favour. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the University. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in September 1999 that subsequent to the Syndicate meeting held on 19.07.1999, the Vice Chancellor has taken charge as Head of the Department of Tamil and Dean Faculty of Tamil on 22.07.1999 and nothing survives in the writ petition. But the counter affidavit does not stop therein. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in September 1999 that subsequent to the Syndicate meeting held on 19.07.1999, the Vice Chancellor has taken charge as Head of the Department of Tamil and Dean Faculty of Tamil on 22.07.1999 and nothing survives in the writ petition. But the counter affidavit does not stop therein. A further averment is made in the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- "I submit that all these matters can be put to a halt if this Honourable Court decides the question of seniority of the petitioner over the third respondent or vice versa". 4. It is rather unfortunate that the University functioning is a deemed University, with the powers conferred by the University Grants Commission, should wait for a Court order to decide the interse seniority dispute between the two individuals and the matter should be kept pending for over 9 years before this Court. However, in order to give a quietus to both the writ petitions, the following orders are passed: 5. The question of seniority between the merit promotee and promotees by the Career Promotion scheme came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava vs. Vikram University and others reported in (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1694). It is relevant to refer to paragraph 47 of the said decision, which reads as follows:- "The question then remains as to how his seniority has to be reckoned as a merit promotee even though he is an ex cadre Reader or Professor. The answer is obvious. Amongst person forming the same class to which he belongs, namely, merit promotee Readers or Professors, their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of continuous officiation as such merit promotees. Such a separate seniority list of merit promotee Readers and Professors has to be prepared and acted upon for purposes other than seniority and promotion in and to the posts available to those in the cadre. It is not as if and they are still to be treated as only Lecturers or Readers as the case may be from which posts they got merit promotion, as wrongly assumed by the High Court. In short, there have to be two seniority lists, one of the cadre Readers and Professors who are direct recruits and the other of merit promotee Readers and Professors. In short, there have to be two seniority lists, one of the cadre Readers and Professors who are direct recruits and the other of merit promotee Readers and Professors. The directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment in paragraph 16 read with the observations in paragraph 12 will have to stand modified as aforesaid. It is, however, clarified that the direction of the High Court that names of respondents 4 to 9 in M.P.1180/89 and respondent No.4 in M.P.208/89 in the combined seniority list will have to be deleted has to be sustained. The other directions contained in the later part of paragraph 16 also will have to be sustained. Point No.2 is answered in the negative but as indicated herein above". 6. When already a direction is given by the Supreme Court in an identical issue and the said Judgment is binding on all authorities including the respondent University, and it is also the law within the meaning of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, there is no necessity for the University to seek Court orders to fix the interse seniority between the parties. However, in the light of the stand taken by the respondent University, the University is hereby directed to convene a meeting of the Syndicate within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the issue, the Syndicate must take a decision and fix appropriate seniority between Dr. M. Kuruvammal, and Dr. Pitchai and communicate the same to the respective parties. If any representation is received form both the parties, they can also be placed before the Syndicate and when once the decision of interse seniority is decided, then appropriate posting in terms of the University regulations can be considered on the respective petitioners and till such time, status-quo as on date will prevail. 7. W.P.No.6243 of 1999 is dismissed and the W.P.Nos.10323 and 12035 of 1999 are disposed of accordingly. No costs.