Devendra Kumar Arora, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 2. By means of present writ petitions, petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to hold meeting of selection committee for the post of Professor in the Department of Economics, University of Lucknow strictly in accordance with First Stature of the University and allow the petitioners to appear in the selection committee which was scheduled for 23.04.2012 for the post of Professor in Economics under Career Advancement Scheme under the provisions of First Stature of the Lucknow University. It has inter Alia been prayed that the University Authorities be restrained from holding Selection Committee on the basis of Government Order dated 31.12.2010. Similar relief has also been sought in the connected Writ Petition No.463 (S/B) of 2012, Dr. Madhu Rajput vs. State of U.P. & others for holding Selection Committee for the post of Professor in the Department of Western History of University. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 of Writ Petition No.485 (SB) of 2012 is presently working as Reader in the Department of Economics and has put in more than 8 years of service as Reader in the Department of Economics of Lucknow University. The petitioner has become eligible for personal promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAS') on completion of 8 years of service on 16.10.2010 for the post of Professor in Economics. 4. Petitioner no. 2 is also working as Reader in the Department of Economics and has put in more than 8 years of service as Reader in the Department of Economics of Lucknow University. He has become eligible for personal promotion under CAS on completion of 8 years of service on 18.10.2010. 5. Dr. Madhu Rajput, (the petitioner of Writ Petition No.463 (S/B) of 2012) is working as Reader in the Department of Western History and has put in more than nine years of service as Reader in the Lucknow University. She became eligible for personal promotion under CAS on completion of 8 years service on 24.01.2011 for the post of Professor in Western History. 6. Since in both the writ petitions common questions of law as well as facts are involved, both the writ petitions are considered together and are being decided by means of a common judgment. She became eligible for personal promotion under CAS on completion of 8 years service on 24.01.2011 for the post of Professor in Western History. 6. Since in both the writ petitions common questions of law as well as facts are involved, both the writ petitions are considered together and are being decided by means of a common judgment. For appreciation of controversy involved in the present writ petitions the facts of Writ Petition No.485 (S/B) of 2012, Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P. & others are being reproduced. However, the facts of Writ Petition No.463 (S/B) of 2012, Dr. Madhu Rajput vs. State of U.P. & others are also mentioned wherever the same are necessary for appreciation of controversy. 7. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Statute 11.20 of the First Statute of Lucknow University, which has been adopted and amended by the University for the post of Professor and as assented by the Chancellor on 23.02.2012, provides that in addition to sanctioned post of Professors, promotions may be made from the post of Reader in the University to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader, for promotion a candidate has to be presented himself before the Selection Committee with (a) consistently good annual academic progress report and performance appraisal report as per appendix (a) and (b) respectively along with other eligibility criterion mentioned in (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Statute 11.20. Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, as per the requirement of provisions of First Statute of Lucknow University, submitted his self appraisal report on 09.10.2010, Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh submitted his self appraisal report on 05.12.2011 and Dr. Madhu Rajput submitter her self appraisal report on 09.12.2011. Petitioners were waiting for the University authorities to constitute Selection Committee for the purpose under First Statute of the Lucknow University. The Registrar, Lucknow University vide letter dated 03.02.2011 informed Dr. Manoj Agarwal (petitioner no.1 of Writ Petition No.485 (S/B) of 2012) that in view of the Government Order dated 31.12.2010, the UGC Regulations, 2010 [for short, it has been referred to as 'Regulations'] are in operation w.e.f. the date of its implementation i.e. 30.06.2010 and petitioner's case is not covered under the existing Regulations, as he has completed 8 years of qualifying service as Reader on 16.10.2010. Similarly, Dr. Similarly, Dr. Madhu Rajput (petitioner of Writ Petition No.463 (S/B) of 2012) was informed through letter dated 26.03.2012 that her case is not covered under the existing Regulations, as she has completed 8 years of qualifying service as Reader on 24.01.2011. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the perusal of the letters dated 3.2.2011 and 26.3.2012 issued to them does not indicate as to why they are not eligible to be considered for promotion under CAS as per existing Statutes. It has been pointed out that both the petitioners have become eligible for promotion under CAS on 16.10.2010 and 18.10.2010 respectively, on which date the Regulations were not brought on Statutes Book. It is submitted that vide Government Order dated 31.12.2010, the State Government required all the Universities to carry out the amendments as per Regulations. Therefore, candidature of petitioners for promotion is to be considered as per the provisions existing at the relevant date. Moreover, any amendment made in the Statutes cannot be given effect retrospectively as Section 50 (5) of the State Universities Act, 1973 provides that the amendment in the Statutes shall come into effect from the date it is assented to by the Chancellor or from such later date as may be specified by him. As such, even if the Statutes of the Lucknow University are amended subsequently, the petitioners cannot be excluded on the basis of subsequent amendment, even otherwise, the amendment directed to be incorporated in the Statutes of the Lucknow University vide Government Order dated 31.12.2010 in pursuance of the aforesaid Regulations have yet not been taken shape of the first Statutes of Lucknow University. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners on knowing that opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are going to hold Selection Committee for the post of Professor under CAS on 23.04.2012 and as they were not called for interview, tried to find out the reason for their exclusion from the Selection Committee and also made request to the Registrar by means of letter dated 23.03.2012 to allow them to participate in the meeting of Selection Committee. It is further submitted that by means of Government Order dated 31.12.2010, the State Government has provided that the Regulations be implemented in all the Universities of the State and directed all the Universities to amend its Statutes in accordance with law. It is further submitted that by means of Government Order dated 31.12.2010, the State Government has provided that the Regulations be implemented in all the Universities of the State and directed all the Universities to amend its Statutes in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the Lucknow University has not amended its Statutes as required by the State Government vide Government Order dated 31.12.2010 till date and the State Government has also not incorporated the said amendments in the First Statutes of Lucknow University after obtaining assent from Hon'ble the Chancellor as required under Section 50 (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and as such the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right, which they have accrued under the existing Statutes. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Lucknow University has not amended its Statutes as required by Government Order dated 31.12.2010 and, as such, the Statutes as referred hereinabove, are intact and unless the same are amended, the University authorities cannot make any selection against the existing statutory provisions, which are binding upon the Universities. Petitioners have completed 8 years qualifying service under CAS on 16.10.2010, 18.10.2010 & 24.01.2011 respectively and as such, the opposite parties are bound to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for promotion under CAS as per existing Statutes. It has been pointed out that this Court in Writ Petition No. 1736 (S/B) of 2011, (Dr. Usha Bajpai and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been pleased to pass an ad-interim order directing 'that the petitioners' candidature for the post of Professor under the CAS shall be considered in the light of the existing Statute in the meeting which is to be held on 29.09.2011 or on any subsequent date.' 11. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the orders passed by this Court to hold selection on the basis of existing Statutes, opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are going to hold selection, excluding the petitioners on the basis of Government order dated 31.12.2010, is not only illegal and against the existing Statutes, but is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. 2 and 3 are going to hold selection, excluding the petitioners on the basis of Government order dated 31.12.2010, is not only illegal and against the existing Statutes, but is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. On behalf of the State, a counter-affidavit has been filed and it has been urged by the Chief Standing Counsel that Section 66-A of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 empowers the State Government to issue directions to the State Universities on policy matters which have to be complied with by the University. Further Section 50 (6) of the aforesaid Act provides that the State Government may require the Executive Council of the Universities to make new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal the Statutes within a specified time, failing which the State Government with the assent of the Chancellor can undertake the same exercise. It is also submitted that University Grants Commission issued notification dated 30.06.2010, containing the aforesaid Regulations with regard to Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education and the same have come into force with effect from the date of notification i.e. 30.06.2010 and any teacher who becomes eligible for benefits under the said Regulations after 30.06.2010, shall be governed by the provisions of the same. 13. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that in order to implement the aforesaid Regulations of the U.G.C. dated 30.06.2010, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 50(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 issued a Government Order dated 31.12.2010, requiring all the State Universities to suitably incorporate the said Regulations at the appropriate places in their First Statutes. When the Universities did not comply with the aforesaid directions of the State Government, it proceeded to amend the First Statutes accordingly and sent the relevant file to the Chancellor for his assent on 08.08.2011. The said file was recalled due to legal proceedings, i.e., Contempt Petition No. 4027 of 2011, Meerut College, Meerut Vs. Awanish Kumar Awasthi in the month of November, 2011. The file was again sent to the Chancellor for his assent on 09.01.2012 and the matter is under consideration of the Chancellor for his assent. 14. The said file was recalled due to legal proceedings, i.e., Contempt Petition No. 4027 of 2011, Meerut College, Meerut Vs. Awanish Kumar Awasthi in the month of November, 2011. The file was again sent to the Chancellor for his assent on 09.01.2012 and the matter is under consideration of the Chancellor for his assent. 14. While opposing the writ petition, learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that as per the letter dated 02.02.2011 of the Registrar, Lucknow University, Lucknow, the petitioners were not found eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the existing CAS. The petitioners have attained eligibility for promotion on the post of Professor after the date of Notification of the Regulations by the University Grants Commission and as such the petitioners are covered by the new provisions as envisaged in the aforesaid Regulations. 15. Shri S.P. Shukla, learned counsel for Lucknow University submitted that the Carrier Advancement Scheme/Personal Promotion Scheme was vogue in various Universities of the State and in the year 1989, the same was replaced with a new Carrier Advancement Scheme and was being implemented in terms of the University Grants Commission [hereinafter referred to as 'UGC' for the sake of brevity] guidelines and Government Orders issued from time from time. Subsequently, in the year 2001, new guidelines/regulations were issued from the UGC and the State Government vide letter dated 03.05.2001 directed the Universities to amend the Statutes accordingly. The Executive Council of the Lucknow University vide its resolution no. 1 dated 03.05.2001 resolved to include the provisions of CAS, which was enforced w.e.f. July, 1987 in its Statutes and started implementing the scheme w.e.f. 03.05.2001 in the matters of promotions of the teachers of the University. But none of the Universities throughout the State including the Lucknow University could amend or incorporate said provisions in the Statutes. It is also submitted that when the present Vice Chancellor, Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra (deponent of the counter affidavit dated 20th April, 2012) took over in the latter part of 2009 and found that the UGC Regulations/guidelines and the Government Orders issued on that basis have not taken the shape of Statutes, he took up matter at various levels for amendments in the then existing Statutes in accordance with these Regulations/guidelines and the Government Orders and expedited the finalization thereof. The draft of the amendment was placed before the Executive Council and after the same was approved by it, the amendments were submitted to the Chancellor for his assent as per provisions of the Act. The Chancellor of the University accorded his final assent to the said amendments to be incorporated in the Statutes of Lucknow University vide order dated 23.02.2012. 16. Later on, UGC issued a new Scheme making the same effective from 31.12.2008. The State Government, accordingly, issued a letter dated 31.12.2010 directing thereby that the aforesaid Regulations shall be enforced in respect of those candidates who obtained their eligibility after 30.06.2010. Thus, at present all the promotions under Career Advancement Scheme are being made on the basis of the Statutes which are in force now, as assented to by the Chancellor on 23.02.2012. It is also submitted that in order to bring uniformity in the matter of the date of enforcement of the said Scheme, the State Government has taken a Policy decision to cover the promotion cases of only those teachers, who have obtained eligibility upto 30th June, 2010. Since the amendments in the Statutes of the University according to the new Scheme of the UGC issued in 2010 is yet to be made, the said Scheme is yet to become the part of the Statutes. Hence, the cases of promotion under CAS at present is being taken up in respect of those teachers only who have become eligible for the next higher post upto 30.06.2010. 17. Shri Shukla further submitted that one of the difficulties being experienced by the Universities in carrying out necessary amendments in their Statutes is the change of nomenclature of various posts, under the said Regulations. For example, the post of Lecturer has been changed to Assistant Professor and the nomenclature of the post of Reader has been changed to Associate Professor. But as far as the State Universities Act is concerned, the nomenclature of these posts still remains as Lecturer and Reader at various places, especially in Section 31-A which deals with the matter of teachers under Career Advancement Scheme. But as far as the State Universities Act is concerned, the nomenclature of these posts still remains as Lecturer and Reader at various places, especially in Section 31-A which deals with the matter of teachers under Career Advancement Scheme. In the same way, there is a vital change stipulated in the constitution of the selection committee for various posts stipulated in the Regulations, whereas as per existing Section 31- A (2), the promotion under CAS shall be given on the recommendation of the selection Committee constituted under clause (a) of Sub Section (4) of Section 31, which provides for experts to be nominated by the Chancellor in the constitution of the Selection Committee whereas the aforesaid Regulations provide for nomination of the experts by the Vice Chancellor and as such same warrants amendment of Universities Act and the amendment in the Act can be done by the Legislature alone. It is also submitted that if the Statutes of University are amended as per new UGC Regulations of 2010, the same shall be inconsistent with the provisions of the State Universities Act. 18. It is further submitted by Shri S.P. Shukla that petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Professor only after June, 2010 and at present only the cases, where the teachers concerned have become eligible upto June, 2010 alone are being taken up and the teachers became eligible after June, 2010, their cases are not being considered for promotion, in view of the policy decision of the Government as contained in order dated 31.12.2010. It is further submitted that provisions of Government order dated 31.12.2010 being policy decision is binding on the University in view of the provisions of Section 66-A of the State Universities Act, 1973 and the case of the petitioners cannot be considered unless the Statutes are not amended as per the aforesaid Regulations. 19. Refuting the assertions of the respondents, Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder reply submitted that the regulations framed by the University Grants Commission cannot be implemented or given effect to unless the same have been incorporated in the First Statute of the University as the University is an autonomous body, governed by the provisions of the State Universities Act and the First Statute of the University framed thereunder and or such Ordinances framed by the University in accordance with the provisions contained under State Universities Act. It is also submitted that State Government by the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 also required the Universities concerned to make necessary amendments in the First Statutes of the Universities in order to implement the regulations framed by the University Grants Commission as notified on 30.06.2010. However, the said regulations have not yet been incorporated in the First Statutes of the Lucknow University till date. 20. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer that this Court by an order dated 18.04.2012 required the Vice Chancellor of the University to file his personal affidavit explaining the position as to when the matter for framing the Statutes was placed before the Executive Council in pursuance of the Government Order dated 31.12.2010, which is referred in the letter dated 26.03.2012 of the Registrar of Lucknow University addressed to the petitioner (Dr. Madhu Rajput), Annexure no. 3 to Writ Petition No. 463 (S/B) of 2012 and secondly when the proposed Statute was sent to the Chancellor for his assent and on what date assent was given by the Chancellor. 21. In pursuance to the order dated 18.04.2012, Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Vice-Chancellor filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 02.05.2012 stating therein that the matter relating to framing of Statutes as per the letter of the State Government dated 31.12.2010 in pursuance of the Regulations was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 30.08.2011 at item no.16. The Executive Council approved the Statutes as contemplated in the aforesaid Regulations in anticipation of the modifications to be received from the State Government under the provisions of the State Universities Act. Paragraph no. 5 of supplementary counter affidavit states that the main difficulty in the matter is that Statutes cannot be framed which may be inconsistent with the U.P. State Universities Act. While demonstrating the difficulties/anomalies in paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned in paragraph-8 that said difficulties can be removed to make it possible to incorporate the provisions of the said Regulations in the Statutes of the University only if the State Universities Act is amended on the said crucial points. 22. Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Prof. 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned in paragraph-8 that said difficulties can be removed to make it possible to incorporate the provisions of the said Regulations in the Statutes of the University only if the State Universities Act is amended on the said crucial points. 22. Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Vice-Chancellor on 07.08.2012 in the background that the Principal Secretary, Higher Education of the U.P. Government was called upon to appear and clarify as to whether the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 was issued in exercise of the powers under Section 50 (6) or Section 66-A of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Principal Secretary made a statement before us that the said Government order was issued under Section 50(6) of the Act. In order to clarify the stand of the University, the Vice Chancellor in paragraph-4 of the said affidavit stated that he understood the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 to have been issued under Section 66-A, as regards the first part whereby it was directed that the Regulations should be implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2010 - meaning thereby that the case which mature after 30th June, 2010 have to be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations in question and that the cases, which have matured before 01.07.2010, have to be processed as per the existing Statutes. His further understanding of the said Government Order was that the second part of it directing the Universities governed by the said Act to amend their Statutes to conform to the new Regulations of the UGC was in exercise of the powers under Section 50(6) of the Act. 23. In the said supplementary counter affidavit, it has been further stated that after knowing the views of the Principal Secretary, Higher Education expressed before the Court to the effect that entire Government Order was issued in exercise of the powers under Section 50(6) of the Act, the answering opposite parties wrote a letter to the Secretary Higher Education, U.P. Government on 22.06.2012 to permit the answering opposite parties to process the cases of even those teachers whose eligibility had accrued after 01.07.2010, as per the existing Statutes pending the actual amendment in the Statutes as per the new UGC Regulations. The Vice Chancellor also wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary to the Chancellor on 30th June, 2012 requesting him to nominate the Experts for various subjects enabling the answering University to process such cases, since as per the existing provisions of the Act, the power of nominating the Experts for the subject concerned is with the Chancellor, whereas according to the new UGC regulations that powers would be exercised by the Vice Chancellor, after the Statutes are amended. 24. We may notice the fact that vide letter dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) the Registrar, Lucknow University did not inform that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion under the existing Career Advancement Scheme, rather vide letter dated 03.02.2011, the Registrar has informed that petitioners are not eligible for promotion in view of the Government Order dated 31.12.2010, which is not the part of the First Statutes of the Lucknow University, as admitted by the respondents, i.e., State Government as well as Lucknow University. We find force in the submissions of the petitioners that merely on the basis of notification of the University Grants Commission or by the State Government, the petitioner cannot be deprived from promotion under Career Advancement Scheme under existing First Statute of the Lucknow University. As First Statutes of the Lucknow University has not been amended so far, therefore, the petitioners are not covered under the aforesaid Regulations, as alleged and they ought to have been considered in accordance with existing Statute as held by this Hon'ble Court time and again. 25. We would like to add that this Court in its order dated 16.05.2012, examined the admitted position to the effect that till date neither the State Government nor the University amended the Statute of the Lucknow University in pursuance of the said Regulations dated 30th June, 2010. Moreover, in para-5 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the University, it has been stated that the main difficulty in making amendment is that the Statutes cannot be framed which may be inconsistent with the U.P. State Universities Act. In para-8, it has been stated that difficulties can be removed to make it possible to incorporate the provisions of the said Regulations in the Statutes of the University only if the State Universities Act is amended on the said crucial points. In para-8, it has been stated that difficulties can be removed to make it possible to incorporate the provisions of the said Regulations in the Statutes of the University only if the State Universities Act is amended on the said crucial points. This Court also examined the letter of the Registrar dated 03.02.2011 filed as Annexure No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 485 (SB) of 2012 and letter dated 26.03.2012 filed as Annexure No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 463 (SB) of 2012, which reveals that petitioners of both the writ petitions were denied consideration, on the post of Professor, on the basis of Government Order dated 31.12.2010, which requires the Universities to amend its Statutes failing which the State Government will amend the Statutes of the Universities and thereafter, formulated following three questions and directed to constitute a Commission : (1) As to whether University Authorities can enforce the provisions of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 without amending its Statutes; (2) Whether deprivation of petitioners and other similarly situated persons from being considered on the post of Professor on the basis of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 or on the basis of unamended Statute is perfect, justified and legal; (3) Whether action of University Authorities depriving the petitioners and the similarly situated persons is contrary to the stand taken in paras 5 to 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.05.2012. 26. This Court directed the Secretary, Higher Education to conduct a preliminary enquiry with regard to functioning of the University in the matter of appointments/promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme as well as to enquire into as to how several Teachers have been deprived of promotion/benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme and compelled to approach this Court for redressal of their grievance. The Authorities of the University were directed to cooperate in the enquiry and produce all the relevant records, which are required by the Secretary or any other officer, who is not below the rank of Joint Secretary and also directed to submit report on the next date of listing. 27. The Authorities of the University were directed to cooperate in the enquiry and produce all the relevant records, which are required by the Secretary or any other officer, who is not below the rank of Joint Secretary and also directed to submit report on the next date of listing. 27. The State Government in pursuance to the direction of this Court constituted three members Enquiry Committee and said Committee examined the record submitted by the Registrar of Lucknow University on 27th July, 2012 and on subsequent dates falling in the month of August, 2012 in presence of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the University and also extended reasonable opportunity to the concerned teachers. Thereafter, the aforesaid Committee's report has been submitted before this Court. 28. A perusal of the report reveals that as per the list of teachers provided by the University, 46 teachers have been promoted as Professor, 15 as Reader and 27 as Lecturer, Senior scale, after 31.12.2008, on the basis of old Carrier Advancement Scheme and 12 teachers for promotion on the post of Professor, 3 teachers for Lecturer, Selection Grade/Reader and 10 teachers for Lecturer, Senior scale were not found eligible on the basis of old Career Advancement Scheme upto 30th June, 2010. The report further indicates that another list was produced by the University, which indicates that the Selection Committee could not meet on account of non-availability of the Experts. Report further indicates that in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the local newspaper on 9.8.2012, twenty four Teachers appeared before the enquiry Committee. The examination of said list reveals that candidatures of some candidates have been considered but rejected and in some cases Selection Committee could not meet on account of non-availability of the Experts. The report also indicates that out of 24 teachers, the candidatures of 11 teachers were not considered, in pursuance of the provisions of Government Order dated 31.12.2010. Therefore, seven writ petitions were filed before this Court and in five writ petitions, this Court has issued similar orders, directing therein to consider the case of said petitioners strictly in accordance with the existing first Statute of the University on the date already fixed for selection or any other subsequent date to be fixed for that purpose. 29. Therefore, seven writ petitions were filed before this Court and in five writ petitions, this Court has issued similar orders, directing therein to consider the case of said petitioners strictly in accordance with the existing first Statute of the University on the date already fixed for selection or any other subsequent date to be fixed for that purpose. 29. The report further discloses that as per information provided by the University, the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions have been complied. In the end, the Committee in response to the questions raised by this Court observed that (1) the provisions of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 cannot be enforced without amending the Statutes. (2) candidature of only those teachers were considered, who were found eligible upto 30th June, 2010 and as per the University, the candidature of such teachers, who have become eligible after 30th June, 2010, will be considered as per the new Career Advancement Scheme after amendment in the Statutes. The Enquiry Committee opined that the aforesaid Regulations are binding on the Universities, but issue of postponing implementation of the Regulations should have been considered, till the amendment in the University Statute is done. (3) As the Universities have not amended their Statutes in pursuance to Government Order and now the State Government is processing the amendment in the Statutes as per the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act and till amended Statutes are implemented, it will not be legal to give benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2010. 30. After submission of the report by the committee, objections were filed by the University to the report of the State Government on 18.09.2012, in which while replying to the findings at serial no. 1 (at running page 20), it is stated that the Lucknow University has not been able to implement the said Regulations, as circulated through the Government Order dated 31.12.2010. It has also been mentioned that even none of the other Universities of the State (governed by State Universities Act, 1973) have been able to amend their Statutes so far to the best knowledge of the deponent. Further the Executive Council in its meeting dated 30.08.2011 approved the amendment in pursuance of the said Regulations, subject to approval by the Chancellor and rest of the paragraphs reiterates the submissions made in earlier counter/supplementary counter affidavits. 31. Further the Executive Council in its meeting dated 30.08.2011 approved the amendment in pursuance of the said Regulations, subject to approval by the Chancellor and rest of the paragraphs reiterates the submissions made in earlier counter/supplementary counter affidavits. 31. At this juncture, it would be relevant to point out that an application for intervenor was filed by four teachers of the University on 12.09.2012, but the same was not pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing. 32. This Court on thorough examination of the pleadings of the parties, has come to the conclusion that it is the admitted case of the opposite parties that the State Government by means of letter dated 30th December, 2010 directed all the State Universities to incorporate the provisions of the aforesaid Regulations, in their respective Statutes within 15 days, failing which, the State Government will amend the concerned Statutes after approval of the Chancellor. The said directions were issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 50(6) of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, as has been pointed out hereinabove. 33. It is the stand of the State Government that when the Universities did not comply with the directions of the State Government dated 31.12.2010, the State Government proceeded to amend the first Statute and sent relevant file to the Chancellor for his assent on 8.8.2011, but the said file was recalled in Contempt Petition No. 4027 (C) of 2011, Meerut College, Meerut Vs. Awanish Kumar Awasthi in the month of November 2011. Later on, the file was again sent to the Chancellor for his assent on 09.01.2012. The matter is under consideration of the Chancellor for his assent, meaning thereby, till date the first Statutes of the Lucknow University have not been amended and the Statute, which occupies the field of Career Advancement Scheme received the assent of the Chancellor only on 23.2.2012. 34. A through scrutiny of the counter affidavit filed by Prof. The matter is under consideration of the Chancellor for his assent, meaning thereby, till date the first Statutes of the Lucknow University have not been amended and the Statute, which occupies the field of Career Advancement Scheme received the assent of the Chancellor only on 23.2.2012. 34. A through scrutiny of the counter affidavit filed by Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Vice-Chancellor dated 20th April, 2012 reveals that the University was implementing the earlier CAS since May, 2001 without its incorporation in the Statutes of the University and on taking over charge as Vice Chancellor of the University in the latter part of 2009, he took steps for amendment of the Statutes and after approval of the draft by the Executive Council, the same was sent to the Chancellor for his approval and the Chancellor accorded his assent to the said amendment for being incorporated in the Statute of the Lucknow University vide order dated 23.02.2012. 35. In this background, it cannot be said that the Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow University was not aware about the procedure of amending the Statutes and its implications. On one hand he took initiative to amend the Statutes to incorporate the provisions of CAS, which was being implemented in pursuance to the guidelines/regulations of the University Grant Commission, 2001 and the Government Orders issued in pursuance thereof and on the other hand, the stand of the Vice Chancellor is that first part of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 was in the nature of policy decision and, therefore, as per provisions of Section 66-A of the Universities Act, they were implementing the directions and considering the candidatures of only such teachers who become eligible by 30th June, 2010 as per the existing Statutes and the teachers, who became eligible after 30th June, 2010, their candidatures will be considered after amendment of the Statutes in pursuance of Regulations in question. 36. Surprisingly, when Prof. 36. Surprisingly, when Prof. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Vice Chancellor in his affidavit submitted that various provisions of the aforementioned Regulations are in conflict with the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and amendment in the Statutes is not possible without amending the provisions of Act and amendment of the University Act is in the domain of State Legislature, even then the University has refused consideration of the teachers, who became eligible after 30th June, 2010 on the basis of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 and apparently because of which, as per the report submitted by the State Government in pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 16.05.2012, seven writ petitions were filed before this Court. In five writ petitions directions were issued by this Court for holding of the Selection Committee strictly in accordance with the existing first Statute of the University on the date already fixed for selection or any other subsequent date fixed for the purpose. Report further indicates that that 11 Teachers apparently were deprived from being considered by the Selection Committee in pursuance to the Government Order dated 31.12.2010. On account of arbitrary and whimsical attitude of the University authorities, petitioners, whereby they were denied promotions, were compelled to approach this Court seeking direction for holding of Selection Committee Meeting for the post of Professor in the subject of Economics and Western History, strictly in accordance with the first Statutes of the University. 37. On account of arbitrary and whimsical attitude of the University authorities, petitioners, whereby they were denied promotions, were compelled to approach this Court seeking direction for holding of Selection Committee Meeting for the post of Professor in the subject of Economics and Western History, strictly in accordance with the first Statutes of the University. 37. This Court is also surprised to see the stand of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University in the affidavit dated 07.08.2012, wherein he has tried to justify his act of not considering the candidature of teachers, who have become eligible after 30th June, 2010, as on appearance of Principal Secretary, High Education in the Court, a specific query was put to him as to whether Government Order dated 31.12.2010 was issued in exercise of power under Section 50 (6) or 66-A of the U.P. State Universities Act, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education informed that the said Government Order was issued under Section 50(6) of the Act, the Vice Chancellor in para-4 of the said affidavit stated that answering opposite parties understood that the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 has been issued under Section 66-A as regards the first part, whereby it was directed that the said Regulations should be implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2010- meaning thereby that the cases, which matured after 30th June, 2010, have to be processed in accordance with the provisions of Regulations in question and the cases, which have matured before 1st July, 2010, have to be processed as per the existing Statutes. It is also stated by the Vice Chancellor that further understanding by answering opposite parties of the said Government order was that the second part of it, directing the Universities governed by the said Act to amend their Statutes to conform to the new UGC Regulations, was in exercise of powers under Section 50 (6) of the Act. After knowing the views of the Principal Secretary to the effect that the entire Government Order was issued in exercise of powers under Section 50 (6) of the Act, the answering opposite parties wrote a letter to the Secretary, Higher Education, U.P. Government on 22.06.2012 to permit the answering opposite parties to process the cases of even those teachers whose eligibility had accrued after 1st July, 2010 to be processed as per the existing Statutes pending the actual amendment in the Statutes as per new Regulations. Thereafter, another letter was written by the University to the Principal Secretary to the Chancellor on 30.06.2012, requesting him to nominate experts for various subjects to enable the answering University to process such cases. 38. This Court is of the considered view that the letter written by the Vice Chancellor to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education after knowing his stand in the Court about the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 issued in exercise of power under Section 50(6) of the Act, was just an eyewash and an attempt to wriggle out of the stand taken by him, as there is no provision under the U.P. State Universities Act, which warrants any permission from the State Government for holding the Selection Committee under the Career Advancement Scheme or for regular selection by the University. 39. This Court time and again given opportunity to the Vice Chancellor, on his appearance, to rectify the mistake and come out with a stand to the effect that University will proceed with the Selection Committee under the Career Advancement Scheme as per the existing Statutes, which have been assented by the Chancellor vide order dated 23.02.2012, till the First Statutes of the University are amended in pursuance of the Regulations, in accordance with the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, so that present matter may be disposed of accordingly, but by means of various affidavits, the Vice Chancellor tried to defend his act of holding Selection Committee as per the provisions of Government Order dated 31.12.2010 read with U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 without its incorporation in the first Statute of the University. It is also very surprising that the Vice Chancellor in different affidavits has also shown difficulty in the amendment of the first Statute of the University in pursuance to the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 read with UGC Regulations, 2010, and even then the action has been taken in pursuance to the same and various teachers including the petitioners, have been deprived of their legitimate right, from being considered under the Career Advancement Scheme as per the existing provisions of the First Statute of the University. We may add that transparency and fairness is the essence of action of the authorities and its deviation, resulting in serious prejudice to the persons. 40. We may add that transparency and fairness is the essence of action of the authorities and its deviation, resulting in serious prejudice to the persons. 40. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we have no hesitation in saying that Authorities of Lucknow University, particularly, the Vice-Chancellor has acted in breach to the provisions of University Act and First Statutes and deprived not only the petitioners, but others also, as is evident from the report submitted by the State Government and instead of holding Meeting of the Selection Committee as per existing provisions of first Statutes, which have been assented by the Chancellor vide order dated 23.02.2012, held Selection Committee, taking into consideration the provisions of Government Order dated 31.12.2010. This Court deprecate the action of the Vice Chancellor. It is without saying that the Universities are the seat of Higher Education and learning and if teachers have to struggle for getting their dues on account of wrong implementation of the policies or acting on the basis of the provisions, which have not been made part of the University Statute, will definitely affect their performance and ultimately will have bearing on the studies of the students. 41. For the reasons aforesaid, both the writ petitions are allowed. We direct the University to hold Selection Committee of the petitioners as well as other similarly situated teachers, strictly in accordance with the first Statute of the University at the earliest, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 42. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case, the Vice-Chancellor has tried in all respects to mislead this Court in order to conceal his arbitrary and whimsical attitude and thus abused the process of law causing serious sufferings to the petitioners and similarly situated other Teachers. Taking a serious view of the issue, we impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) upon the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The cost shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a month. The Registrar, in turn, shall remit 50% to petitioners and remaining 50% amount shall be transmitted to the account of Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. _____________