Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioner with effect from the date when recommendations were made by the Selection Committee and he be given the monitory benefits along with arrears with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Assistant Professor, being eligible and qualified for the said post, in the year 1982 in the Udaipur University, Udaipur. Petitioner is science graduate and is also possessing the Ph.D. in Botany subject. The present University was established after bifurcation of the Agricultural Wing from the University of Udaipur and, now, the petitioner is employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. 3. Case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor was considered and he was accorded promotion in the year 1991 and, at present, he is continuing as such. University Grants Commission while exercising powers conferred by clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26, read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 promulgated a scheme known as Career Advancement Scheme (for short, to be called “the CAS” hereinafter) and same was published notification published in the month of March 2000. Vide Annex.-1 dated 19.05.2001 Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan conveyed the decision of the State Government to implement the CAS and, for the said purpose, all the Universities were advised to start immediately the process of adjudging the suitability of eligible teachers under the CAS. Further, it is directed by the State Government that a list of those eligible teachers who are found suitable by the Selection Committee in the order of their inter-se seniority may also be prepared and submitted to the Chancellor's office. 4. The respondent University initiated the process for granting benefit of CAS in the year 2001 and, in response to said initiation, the petitioner applied and he was called for interview vide letter dated 29.09.2001 and he was directed to appear for interview on 05.10.2001. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner and recommended his name for providing the benefit under the CAS. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner and recommended his name for providing the benefit under the CAS. It is worthwhile to observe that the petitioner was having good academic career and was eligible for being promoted on the post of Professor, therefore, after interview he was found suitable for promotion under the CAS. 5. The Board of Management considered the recommendations of the Selection Committee in its 48th meeting held on 20.10.2001 and, in the said meeting, it was resolved that notification of the UGC dated March 2000 adopted be confirmed. Further, the Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Board of Management read out the name of the selected candidatures out of the panel recommended by the Selection Committee. The House unanimously approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee but approval of the recommendations were made only to the extent of posts as sanctioned by the State Government. 6. Contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was selected by the Selection Committee and his name was recommended as envisaged by the UGC while floating the said Scheme but benefit under the CAS was not given to the petitioner on account of the embargo put by the State Government in relation to the number of posts. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation to the State Government and, upon representation, the Vice Chancellor was called upon to offer his comments. In return, the Vice Chancellor wrote a letter dated 11.10.2002, in which, the Vice Chancellor categorically admitted that a professor can effectively give a conceptual inputs, generate resources and effectively monitor the impact of knowledge. Therefore, a post of Professor in Plant Physiology will be useful. In the said letter, the Vice Chancellor further observed that since the University had to confine the promotions under CAS to the number of posts assigned by the Government Dr. Bora though found competent could not be accommodated, so are some other teachers. As per the petitioner, aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee but on account of the said embargo placed by the State Government with regard to number of posts the petitioner was not promoted. Bora though found competent could not be accommodated, so are some other teachers. As per the petitioner, aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee but on account of the said embargo placed by the State Government with regard to number of posts the petitioner was not promoted. Upon sending the comments by the Vice Chancellor, the letter was sent by the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Group.2) Department to the Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan Agriculture University, whereby, certain information was called with regard to the financial implication if promotion is accorded to the petitioner. 7. In pursuance of the communication Annex.-5 dated 29.10.2002, a reply was given by the respondent University on 30.10.2002, in which, it was specifically observed that total financial liability will be Rs.7,623/-. In para 12 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that CAS was adopted by all the Universities as decided by the Government to implement the said scheme and respondent University also adopted the same and decided to give effect to it, therefore, process was initiated and petitioner and all other eligible candidates were interviewed in different subjects; but, the State Government wanted to intervene in the matter and tried to put embargo with regard to number of posts. In such circumstances, the Associate Professors of the Rajasthan University preferred a writ petition at Jaipur Bench, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7986/2006, Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & others, in which, ad interim order was passed on 24.04.2007 in the following terms : “........to the extent that the respondent University shall be free to consider all eligible candidates for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme as per the guidelines and norms fixed by the University Grants Commission. Since there are no restrictions on the number of posts under the Scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission, the respondent University may grant benefit under the Scheme to all the candidates who are found eligible and suitable by the Committee irrespective of the restrictions, if any, imposed by the State Government.” 8. Since there are no restrictions on the number of posts under the Scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission, the respondent University may grant benefit under the Scheme to all the candidates who are found eligible and suitable by the Committee irrespective of the restrictions, if any, imposed by the State Government.” 8. As per the petitioner, the above interim order was further challenged by the State Government by way of filing special appeal before the Division Bench, being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.766/2007, in which, the Division Bench observed that the State Government could not even be an aggrieved person so as to file appeal against the interim order. Thus, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the interim order dated 24.07.2007. The State Government after dismissal of the special appeal discussed the matter and finally sent a communication dated 17.12.2007 to the Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for the subject of implementation of the CAS and directed the University to follow the orders passed by the High Court. 9. In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that the State Government unequivocally and unambiguously has ordered that various orders of the High Court passed in different writ petitions relating to the process of CAS must be implemented without any subjective and selective implementation of such Courts orders, which are on equal footing and equally enforceable. Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that though there is no lawful legal embargo so as not to promote the petitioner under CAS but, somehow, the matter with regard to promotion is hanging fire between the University and the Government and promotion of the petitioner has been withheld without any rhyme or reason. As per the petitioner, he has been deprived from the benefits of the CAS unnecessarily and put to loss every month, for which, the petitioner is suffering mental agony. 10. For the above grievance, the petitioner sent a legal notice also on 31.05.2007 but no decision for granting promotion to the petitioner under CAS has been conveyed and still the petitioner is getting his salary of the post of Associate Professor and waiting for the outcome of his performance in the interview. 11. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. 10. For the above grievance, the petitioner sent a legal notice also on 31.05.2007 but no decision for granting promotion to the petitioner under CAS has been conveyed and still the petitioner is getting his salary of the post of Associate Professor and waiting for the outcome of his performance in the interview. 11. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently argued that action of the respondent University and State Government in not giving the benefit of CAS to the petitioner is totally discriminatory, so also, in contravention of the adjudication made by this Court, under which, the benefit of CAS was extended to the Associate Professors of the Rajasthan University in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra) and, till today, the petitioner has been deprived from his right to get the benefit under the CAS for the post of Professor. The State Government is unauthorisedly and illegally trying to intervene in the matter by fixing the number of posts but this aspect of the matter was taken care of by the High Court and it was held that the University may grant benefit under the Scheme to all the candidates who are found eligible and suitable by the Committee irrespective of the restrictions, if any, imposed by the State Government; and, the said order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench at the Jaipur Bench. In compliance of the said judgment benefit has been extended to Assistant Professors and Associate Professors of the Rajasthan University, therefore, the same benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner knowing it well that the petitioner was found suitable by the Selection Committee was constituted for granting benefit under CAS, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Official Liquidator's case, this writ petition may be allowed and while maintaining judicial discipline the same relief granted in Nand Kishore's case may be allowed to the petitioner. 12. 12. Per contra, by way of filing reply, the respondent University submits that as per directions given by the State Government the Scheme promulgated by the UGC known as CAS was implemented and petitioner's case was also considered along with other candidates for granting benefit under the CAS by the Selection Committee but the Selection Committee found Dr. S.N. Sharma at better footing, therefore, placed him at S.No.1 in the select-list and name of petitioner at S.No.2 and recommended by the Selection Committee but the name of petitioner was not approved by the Board of Management because only one post of Professor was available in the branch of Plant Physiology, therefore, the benefit was extended to Dr. S.N. Sharma who stood at S.No.1. While admitting the selection of the petitioner, it is submitted that his name was at S.No.2 and only one post was sanctioned by the State Government, therefore, the petitioner was denied benefit of promotion under CAS. 13. In the reply, it is categorically admitted that the petitioner is eligible, found suitable but placed at S.No.2 in the select-list by the Selection Committee, therefore, he could not be accorded promotion for want of post because the State Government sanctioned only one post. It is also observed that the posts for giving promotion under CAS are limited and due to financial constrains the petitioner was not granted promotion. In the reply, respondent University has invited attention towards letter dated 23.06.2001 and submits that as per the said letter for granting benefit under the CAS availability of posts is necessary. 14. In the reply to para 13 of the writ petition, with regard to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.766/2007, it is submitted that it is concerned to the State Government, therefore, no reply is needed from the answering respondent. In the reply, for issuance of order dated 17.12.2007 (Annex.7) by the State, it is observed that Annex.7 dated 17.12.2007 has been passed by the State Government in the administrative capacity, therefore, nothing further is required to be stated as of now. In the reply, for issuance of order dated 17.12.2007 (Annex.7) by the State, it is observed that Annex.7 dated 17.12.2007 has been passed by the State Government in the administrative capacity, therefore, nothing further is required to be stated as of now. As per respondents, the University is not competent to increase the number of particular posts inasmuch the posts are created by the State Government which is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting promotion, therefore, the petitioner's allegation for not promoting him is absolutely baseless. 15. In the reply, it is categorically accepted that on account of limited number of posts higher preference was accorded to Dr. S.N. Sharma by the Selection Committee and petitioner could not be given promotion to the post of Professor because there was only one post. It is also accepted in the reply that UGC has promulgated CAS for giving benefit of promotion to such teachers whose pay-scale has become stagnant. The petitioner's case was also considered for the above purpose but, for want of post, he was not given promotion though he was found suitable and placed at S.No.2. 16. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is reiterated that once the judgment is delivered by the Jaipur Bench and promotions were accorded by the Rajasthan University under CAS, then, the respondents cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner only on the ground that still there is requirement of posts for granting promotion to the petitioner. In the sur-rejoinder, the University has pointed out that the State Government is required to grant funds and, presently, if the financial assistance prayed for is not granted the University will face the financial burden and, due to signing MOU by the University with the State Government, the University cannot grant benefit under CAS on account of financial constraints. It is also pointed out that the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma's case (supra) is applicable to the University involved therein and respondent University is different University having much lesser resources, therefore, said ratio does not cover the case of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma's case (supra) is applicable to the University involved therein and respondent University is different University having much lesser resources, therefore, said ratio does not cover the case of the petitioner. While placing certain documents on record, it is submitted that the Registrar of the University though wrote a letter, in which, it is made clear that additional fund is required, but, here in this case, the petitioner is claiming promotion on the ground that there is no restriction in the CAS framed by the University Grants Commission for grant of benefit under the Scheme, so also, the State Government cannot put embargo of sanctioned posts, but, in fact, for granting promotion to the petitioner additional fund is required, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of promotion under CAS. 17. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit along with certain documents, out of which, office order dated 10.02.2008 issued by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur has been filed, in which, number of persons were given benefit of promotion from retrospective dates and, further filed certain documents as have been obtained by the petitioner under the Right of Information Act from the respondent University to show the cadre strength of the University, so also, communication dated 27.08.2009 and communication dated 3/5-10-2009 issued by the Information Officer of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, in which, it is informed that for promotion under CAS from Associate Professor no vacant post is required because it is personal promotion scheme. Another documents which is placed on record is dated 25.04.2007 issued by the Under Secretary addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, in which, it is clarified that CAS is personal promotion which is not vacancy-based. Said document is Annex.-F. 18. In this view of the matter, the main controversy in this case is, “Whether in the scheme promulgated by the University Grants Commission in the month of March 2000, decided to be implemented by the State Government for granting promotion under the scheme, the post is required or not being personal promotion scheme and the candidate found suitable by the Selection Committee is entitled to get benefit under the CAS for promotion to the post of Professor. Further, whether any embargo can still be put by the State Government after implementing decision in the case of Dr. Nand Kumar Sharma's case (supra) rendered by the Jaipur Bench.” 19. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, so also, perused the entire pleadings of the case. 20. In this case, following facts are not disputed : (A) The Scheme formulated by the UGC known as CAS has been implemented by all Universities of Rajasthan as per decision taken by the State Government. (B) The petitioner is possessing all qualification and eligibility for promotion on the post of Professor under the CAS. (C) It is admitted position of the case that Selection Committee which is constituted for the purpose of adjudging suitability for granting benefit under the CAS found that the petitioner is eligible for promotion, therefore, name of the petitioner was included at S.No.2 and recommended for promotion. (D) Admittedly, the candidate Dr. S.N. Sharma who is at S.No.1 in the merit has been accorded promotion and petitioner's name was at S.No.2 in the select-list but the Board of Management did not approve the name of the petitioner for the reason that only one post was sanctioned by the State Government. (E) There is decision of the State Government for granting promotion under the CAS as per judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench, upon which, the State Government issued letter to the Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 17.12.2007 to grant promotion under CAS as per various order passed by the Hon'ble High Court which is as follows : “The Government has received various complaints/ representations with regard to the process of Career Advancement Scheme for promotion of Associate Professors to Professor, Interviews for which have been scheduled by the University of Rajasthan w.e.f. 17th December 2007. In the light of this, it is the considered view of the State Government that while implementing the CAS Scheme, the University of Rajasthan must ensure that - (a) Various orders of Hon'ble High Court passed in different Writ Petitions relating to the process of CAS, must be implemented without any subjective and selective implementation of such Court Orders, which are on equal footing and equally enforceable. These orders include – Order dated 22/11/2005 in SBCW No.5858/2001; Order dated 2/10/2006 and Order dated 24/4/2007 in SBCW No.7986/2006; Order dated 10/09/2007 in SBCW No.4139/2007; Order dated 25/5/2007 in SBCW No.3956/2006; and Order dated 23/5/2007 in SBCW No.3874/2007. (b) The relevant rules/regulations/Guidelines of CAS, especially the ones pertaining to the presence of Observers of the UGC as prescribed by the University Grants Commission must be properly adhered to; It is hoped that the University of Rajasthan shall take fullest care of the above aspect to avoid any further legal and administrative complications.” (F) It is admitted position of the case that the University of Rajasthan while following order of the Government dated 17.12.2007, Annex.-7 accorded promotion vide order dated 10.02.2008 under CAS to all the persons whose names were recommended by the Selection Committee after selection and they were given benefit from retrospective dates. (G) It is also admitted position that in the Rajasthan University for promotion under CAS the State Government issued Annex.-7 dated 17.12.2007, in which, no assertions has been made by the State Government that promotion shall be made only against sanctioned posts. The only assertion has been made that orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in different writ petitions relating to the process of CAS must be implemented without any subjective and selective implementation of such Court Orders, which are on equal footing and equally enforceable; meaning thereby, the State Government has accepted the judgment of the High Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Dr. Nand Kumar Sharma's case, in which, it is held that no such condition of sanctioned post can be imposed by the State Government. (H) Admittedly, Annex.-1 dated 19.05.2001 was issued by the Government to all the Universities of Rajasthan whereby decision was taken to implement CAS in the month of March 2000. 21. Besides the above admitted facts in the case, an important aspect of the matter is the intention of the scheme and how does the scheme lay down stipulations. (H) Admittedly, Annex.-1 dated 19.05.2001 was issued by the Government to all the Universities of Rajasthan whereby decision was taken to implement CAS in the month of March 2000. 21. Besides the above admitted facts in the case, an important aspect of the matter is the intention of the scheme and how does the scheme lay down stipulations. The UGC Regulations, 2000 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advance of Teachers in universities and Colleges, March 2000 stipulates vide clause 2.5.0 as follows : “2.5.0 PROFESSOR (PROMOTION).-In addition to sanctioned position of professor, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader.” 22. It is thus obvious that the scheme, in its own terms, is explicit that promotion offered under the scheme is in addition to the sanctioned posts. Therefore, the restriction imposed by the State Government is violative of the scheme which the State Government has directed the Universities to implement and once having directed to implement the CAS, it is not open for the State Government to put restriction of sanctioned posts. On the basis of above admitted facts and having considered the scheme itself, I am of the opinion that the controversy involved in this case is no more res integra after issuance of Annex.-7 dated 17.12.2007 by the State Government for implementing the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. Nand Kumar Sharma (supra), in which, it has been held that no embargo can be imposed by the State Government for granting benefit under the scheme known as CAS. Further, in my opinion, the purpose of promulgating the CAS is that in the event of non-availability of sanctioned posts if qualified and eligible candidates are stagnating for more than eight years on the same post without any further promotion, then, by way of such scheme, the benefit can be extended to remove the stagnancy. In the State of Rajasthan, the Government has promulgated a scheme of Selection Scale vide order dated 25.01.1992 for subordinate staff of the State Government, in that scheme also, there is no restriction with regard to number of posts. 23. In the State of Rajasthan, the Government has promulgated a scheme of Selection Scale vide order dated 25.01.1992 for subordinate staff of the State Government, in that scheme also, there is no restriction with regard to number of posts. 23. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the State Government after passing order Annex.-7 dated 17.12.2007 for implementing the judgment of the Jaipur Bench, no further restriction can be imposed upon the Rajasthan Agriculture University that no promotion under the CAS shall be made without any sanctioned post because in the Rajasthan University all selected candidates were granted benefit of CAS. The State Government is nonetheless under obligation to implement the scheme after having once taken decision to implement the scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission. So also, putting embargo of sanctioned post is also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Being eligible and found suitable by the Selection Committee, the petitioner's name finds place at S.No.2, therefore, the petitioner is very much entitled for the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor under the CAS. 24. In the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court, in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 , in para 90 and 91, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows : “90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. 91. 91. We may add that in our constitutional setup every citizen in under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issued and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law.” 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while keeping in mind the fact that the State Government passed order Annex.-7 dated 17.12.2007 in compliance of order passed by this Court, at Jaipur Bench, in the case of Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma & Others (supra), whereby, embargo of sanctioned post was set aside and State Government directed the University to grant benefit of the scheme to all selected candidates, while maintaining judicial discipline, this writ petition is also allowed. Respondent University is directed to grant benefit of promotion to the post of Professor under the CAS to the petitioner from the date said benefit was granted to Dr. S.N. Sharma, with all consequential benefits. Further, it is held that once the State Government has decided to implement the CAS promulgated by the UGC, then, without putting any condition of sanctioned post, the State shall provide funds to the University. The respondents shall comply the above directions within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.