Judgment : This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not promoting the petitioner from the post of Reader to the post of Professor, though he fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the notification dated 24.12.1998 and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner completed his Ph.D in 1996 in Arabic and his specialization area is Literature, Grammar and Translation. He was appointed as Reader in the 2nd respondent University on 01.01.2001 and he has privilege of writing 18 books and various articles on various topics relating to his subject and the same have been published. 3. The petitioner also submitted that the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 04.07.2008, inviting applications from Readers who are eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as per the 1st respondent notification dated 24.12.1998. It is submitted that in response to the said notification, he submitted his self-appraisal report by complying necessary requirements. Thereafter, he was interviewed on 20.04.2010 by the Selection Committee, appointed by the 1st respondent, and the Selection Committee found him eligible for promotion and has recommended his candidature for promotion from the post of Reader to the post of Professor under the CAS. 4. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 29.11.2010 intimating that the proposal of promoting him to the grade of Professor has not been approved by the UGC. Therefore, immediately he approached the 2nd respondent to know the reasons of rejecting his case for promotion and eventually he came to know the reason for rejection that it has been observed that out of five, one publication is a proceedings of National Seminar, which cannot be considered as a full-fledged publication, therefore, the UGC has not approved his case for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS. He further submitted that as per the notification dated 04.07.2008, the requirement of written contribution would be three only, however, he submitted 8 books and 9 papers, which was presented before the Selection Committee. Therefore, even if one publication is said to have not been a full-fledged publication, the 1st respondent could have taken into consideration that the remaining would be 8 books and 8 papers. Therefore, even if one publication is said to have not been a full-fledged publication, the 1st respondent could have taken into consideration that the remaining would be 8 books and 8 papers. There is no justification, whatsoever, on the part of the 1st respondent in not promoting him from the post of Reader to the post of Professor though he fulfilled eligibility criteria and the Selection Committee has recommended for his promotion. It is also submitted that though he become eligible for promotion on 01.01.2009, he was not promoted till today depriving the benefit of promotion. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in not promoting him from the post of Reader to the post of Professor is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 5. On behalf of the respondent counter affidavit has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions possessing all the requisite qualifications for promotion and faced interview well conducted by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was not given promotion so far. However, it is also submitted that the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting to intimate the exact list of five publications, out of which two could be books submitted by the candidate before interview for evaluation and assessment along with evaluation/assessment reports of subject experts who assessed the research work of the petitioner before his interview. In response to which, the 2nd respondent also addressed a letter dated 24.02.2011 enclosing the necessary material as desired by the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent did not pass any orders at their end. Therefore, eventually, he requested that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor and to pass appropriate orders. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University would submit that the 1st respondent may be directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the letter dated 24.02.2011. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 9. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University would submit that the 1st respondent may be directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the letter dated 24.02.2011. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 9. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the1st respondent addressed a letter dated 23.02.2011 to the 2nd respondent, which reads as under: “With reference to your letter noEFL-U/RO/10/3531 dated 13.01.2010 regarding Selection Committee Meeting for the promotion of Reader to the post of Professor held on 20.04.2010 at your University for the subject of Arabic. In view of the information furnished by your, the position of case of Dr.Syed jahangir, Deptt. Of Arabic, the teacher concerned is as under:- The date of appointment/promotion as Reader w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and had completed 8 years period as Reader on 31.12.2008. While going through documents/papers submitted by you, a long list of publications submitted by the candidates instead of list of 5 publications. Evaluation and assessment report of subject experts who evaluated these publication before interview has also not been received with the aforesaid letter which is required to finalize the case. Therefore, you are, requested to intimate in the first instance, the exact list of 5 publications, out of which two could be books submitted by the candidate before interview for evaluation and assessment along with the evaluation/assessment reports of subject experts who assessed the research work of Dr.Jahangir before his interview. This was also be ensured that the publications were duly placed before the Selection Committee for their consideration to enable us to take further necessary action in the matter and also keep on hold the recommendations for the Selection Committee in the case until further directions of UGC are received. With regards.” In response to the said letter, the 2nd respondent also addressed a letter dated 24.02.2011 to the 1st resondent, which reads as under: “With reference to your letter D.DO.No.F.3-78/2009(PS) Pt. File, dated 23.02.2011 received by fax, I am to inform you that Dr. Jahangir has submitted 8 books and 9 papers as academic contributions for considering him under CAS to the grade of Professor. List of the books 8 nos and list of papers 9 numbers submitted are enclosed as Enclosure 1 and 2. File, dated 23.02.2011 received by fax, I am to inform you that Dr. Jahangir has submitted 8 books and 9 papers as academic contributions for considering him under CAS to the grade of Professor. List of the books 8 nos and list of papers 9 numbers submitted are enclosed as Enclosure 1 and 2. All these publications 8 books and 9 papers have been sent to the subject matter experts (evaluators) for assessing and submitting their reports. All the three evaluators submitted their reports. All the three confidential reports of the experts are enclosed as Enclosures 3,4,5. All the above academic contributions along with his application for CAS assessment and his personal files have been placed to the selection Committee (interview). A copy of the Selection Committee recommendations are also enclosed herewith as Enclosure 6. For consideration and necessary action.” 10. From the above all, it is clear that there is correspondence between the 1st and the 2nd respondents with regard to promotion of the petitioner and the matter is pending at the 1st respondent’s level. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the letter dated 24.02.2011 and accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 12. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.