JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri V.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri U.S.Awasthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri S.K.Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 1.8.1976 for a period of two years. Thereafter, by appointment letter dated 28.1.1979 the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis for a period of one year w.e.f. 28.12.1978 in the institute, namely Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi. The services of the petitioner was confirmed by letter dated 4.1.1980. Later on the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk by letter dated 21.12.1985 w.e.f. 4.10.1985. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the post of Senior Assistant by direct recruitment and claiming his promotion on the said post on the ground that the said post was to be filled up by promotion and since the petitioner was fully qualified, therefore, he was liable to be promoted on the said post. 4. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 5. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the institution has its own bye laws relating to the service. Clause (20) of the bye-laws, governing the procedure of selection committee and appointment provides that if the Departmental Promotion Committee does not find internal candidates suitable for the post earmarked for promotion in terms of seniority-cum-fitness the posts may be advertised on all India basis for selection. Internal candidates may also apply for such posts. The Rules of the Banaras Hindu University are not applicable in the institute. It is explained that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk and his services were confirmed on 28.12.1978 and thereafter, he worked in the Accounts Section only for the period from 2.4.1986 to 30.6.1986 about two months and 28 days only. The meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as “D.P.C.”) was held on 25.2.1991 and the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion to the next higher scale of senior Assistant because he had worked in Accounts Section only for about two months and 28 days only. The meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as “D.P.C.”) was held on 25.2.1991 and the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion to the next higher scale of senior Assistant because he had worked in Accounts Section only for about two months and 28 days only. Whereas at least 3 years working experience is required for next promotion of Senior Assistant (Accounts) D.P.C. was held on 25.2.1991 to consider the promotion against the post of Assistant Accountants (Senior Assistant Accounts) and Senior Assistant (Confidential) (Senior Assistant Examination). The qualification for the post of Assistant Accountant (Senior Assistant Accounts) in B.Com degree of a recognised University, 3 years experience in Accountancy in Government or in recognised institution, sufficient knowledge of Central Government financial Rules and internal were also required to fulfill the above qualification and knowledge for becoming eligible for promotion as per bye laws of the institute. The qualification prescribed for the Senior Assistant (Confidential) (Senior Assistant Examination) is Shastri degree or equivalent examination of recognised University, knowledge of administration and financial and at least 3 years working experience in University or Government or Semi-Government department. The meeting of D.P.C. held on 25.2.1991. The petitioner has worked in account section only for two months and 28 days only, therefore, as per recruitment rules none of the internal candidates fulfill the requisite qualification for above post as he did not possessed 3 years working experience. The D.P.C. in its meeting held on 6.11.1989 considers the candidature of 8 internal candidates including that of the petitioner Sri Hausila Singh for promotion to the post of internal Auditor. On the recommendation of the D.P.C. Sri A.K.Srivastava was promoted to the post of Internal Auditor. 6. The D.P.C. Considers the names of following candidates for promotion to the above post on 25.2.1991. The petitioner when called for an interview on 27.8.1991 did not appear. The selection committee recommended the name of Dhandhup for appointment against the post of Senior Assistant (Confidential). 7. Sri P.Doarji (Store Keeper) working since 28.12.1978 presently Senior Assistant (Stores) is senior than the petitioner Hausila Singh. Sri S.B.Tiwari (Prof/Reader) working since 23.3.1978. Sri Hausila Singh U.D.C. Working as U.D.C. Since 4.10.1985. The committee considers the promotion to various posts thoroughly based on seniority-cum-fitness. 8. 7. Sri P.Doarji (Store Keeper) working since 28.12.1978 presently Senior Assistant (Stores) is senior than the petitioner Hausila Singh. Sri S.B.Tiwari (Prof/Reader) working since 23.3.1978. Sri Hausila Singh U.D.C. Working as U.D.C. Since 4.10.1985. The committee considers the promotion to various posts thoroughly based on seniority-cum-fitness. 8. It is also relevant to mention that the recommendation of the D.P.C. was approved by the Board of Governors at its IXth meeting held on 26.2.1991. The interview for the post of Senior Assistant (Examination) was held on 27.8.1991. Although the above named petitioner did not apply for the post they were called for interview in compliance with decision of the D.P.C. even petitioner had not applied for the post of Senior Assistant at that point of time nor he appeared in interview. Sri Dhondhup was appointed as Senior Assistant (Examination) on the recommendation of the selection committee of its meeting held on 27.8.1991. Sri Dhondhup however did not join the said post. 9. It is denied that any illegality was committed by the D.P.C. in recommending direct recruitment against the post of Senior Assistant. Since no internal candidate was found eligible/suitable, the bye-laws of the institute provide for direct recruitment if suitable internal candidate are not available. In this connection clause 20 of the bye-laws governing selection procedure and relates matters is also quoted in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 10. The institute had its own recruitment rules duly approved by the Board of Governors and the department as himself stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that “It is denied that the post of Senior Clerk, Senior Assistant and Section Officer must be filled by promotion only. The recruitment rules provides for qualifications for the post of Senior Assistant both for promotion and direct recruitment through the advertisement. The report of the Cadre report committee submitted in the year 1993 was made applicable with effect from 6.4.1988 and if D.P.C. Does not find the suitable candidate for the post earmarked for promotion in terms of seniority-cum-fitness the post are advertise on all India basis for selection. Internal candidates may also apply for such post and in pursuance thereof the advertisement was made on 20.4.1993 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are given appointment after following the procedure and recruitment rules. 11. Internal candidates may also apply for such post and in pursuance thereof the advertisement was made on 20.4.1993 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are given appointment after following the procedure and recruitment rules. 11. The post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) and Senior Assistant (Examination) were advertised in terms of the recommendation of the D.P.C. The petitioner did not submit the application on the prescribed form for either of the two posts. Apart from this the petitioner did not fulfill the essential qualification for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) as petitioner did not possessed B.Com degree. The interview of the above post was held on 4.4.1996 and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as senior Assistant (Accounts) and respondent No. 4 as Senior Assistant (Examination) on the recommendation of the selection committee. 12. The petitioner has not challenged either the recommendation of D.P.C. held on 25.2.1991 by way of appeal given in clause-35(IV) of the memorandum of Association, Rules and Bye-laws of the institute nor he has challenged the advertisement dated 20.4.1993 nor has raised any complaint before any appropriate authority of the said institute and after selection of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable in the eye of law. Thus, the aforesaid petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 13. The petitioner allegedly has annexed the rules and bye-laws of the institute, the appointment and promotion of the said institute as given in para 11 of the writ petition but the copy of the rules, which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition is of Banaras Hindu University, which is not applicable in the said institution nor the said institute has adopted the same at any point of time therefore, the basis of the claim of the writ petition is not maintainable nor legal nor appropriate nor justified hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. It is stated that the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 24.12.2000 and the salary has been fixed as per the rules applicable on promotion. 15. I have considered the rival submissions. 16. 14. It is stated that the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 24.12.2000 and the salary has been fixed as per the rules applicable on promotion. 15. I have considered the rival submissions. 16. The contention of the petitioner that the post of Senior Assistant is to be filled up by promotion only is based on the Rules of Banaras Hindu University, which is not applicable to the present institute. The Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies Sarnath, Varanasi was established in the year 1967 and later on it became deemed University w.e.f. 6.4.1988. The University has its own rules of recruitment, which are applicable in the present case and not the rules of recruitment framed by the Banaras Hindu University to fill up the post through promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee was not found the petitioner qualified for promotion as he did not possess three years’ experience and, therefore, he has not been considered for promotion in the interview held on 27.8.1991. Although the petitioner did not apply for the post of Senior Assistant at that point of time still he has been called for interview in compliance with the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee but he did not appear in the interview. Since no internal candidate was found eligible/suitable for promotion in accordance to clause 20 of the bye-laws, therefore, advertisement made on 20.4.1993 to fill up the post by direct recruitment. The petitioner did not apply in pursuance of the advertisement. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 applied and have been selected. The petitioner has neither challenged the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25.2.1991 nor challenged the advertisement dated 20.4.1993. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. If the petitioner has any grievance against the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner should have challenged the same at that stage. Since the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25.2.1991 wherein the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion, has not been challenged, now it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by direct recruitment. 17. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly dismissed. ——————