JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have prayed for following main relief in para 32 of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- “1.Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this petition and a writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction may be issued holding that the decision may be issued holding that the decision taken by the respondent No.2, dated 1.10.2005, Annexure-T and Annexure-T(1) letter dated 27.9.2005 of respondent No.2 are illegal, null and void and hence be quashed and set aside, and further be pleased to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get the revised pay scale of Rs.1500-2500 along with consquite and subsequent benefits, attached to their pay scale including D.A. etc. from the date on which the petitioners were promoted to the post of professor or its equivalent by Respondent no.1, along with the interest at the rate of 15% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed with an Institute of Agriculture, Anand prior to 1972 and in the year 1972, the Gujarat Agricultural University having come into existence, the services of the petitioners were transferred to the Gujarat Agricultural University. At that time, the petitioners were working as Assistant Professors and next promotion was to the post of Professor or equivalent to it. The petitioners were given promotions on the post of Professor in the pay scale of Rs.500-1250. The petitioners have averred that in the case of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, no condition for subject to selection was imposed in their promotion orders and they started working as Professors or equivalent post. It is further case of the petitioners that the Board of Management of the University revised the pay scale from Rs.500-1250 to Rs.1100-1600 with effect from 1.6.1972 vide notification dated 9.4.1974. The petitioners have averred that by notification dated 8.4.1974, the University provided that the Rules of Recruitment which were immediately in force prior to 1.6.1972 would be applicable in the case of transferred employees. It is the case of the petitioners that the Board of Management of the University prescribed qualifications vide notification dated 3.7.1973 for different posts, including the post of Professor and equivalent to it, wherein relaxation to acquire qualification of Ph.D. degree was also prescribed. It is the case of the petitioners that the Board of Management of the University prescribed qualifications vide notification dated 3.7.1973 for different posts, including the post of Professor and equivalent to it, wherein relaxation to acquire qualification of Ph.D. degree was also prescribed. However, such qualification criteria would not come in the way of the petitioners for getting the pay scale for the post of Professor as the qualification criteria were prospective in nature and even if such criteria are to be applied in the case of the petitioners, the petitioners would fall in the relaxation clause and since the petitioners have subsequently acquired Ph.D. qualification, the petitioners would be entitled to revised pay scale. The petitioners have alleged that though the Board of Management called for the objections as per its decision in the meeting held on 22.9.1975 for fixing the new criteria of qualification for the post of Professor for granting revised pay scale of University Grants Commission (‘UGC’ for short), however, as stated above, the petitioners since were entitled to criteria of relaxation for acquiring Ph.D. qualification, the petitioners could be considered eligible for revised UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. It is further stated that even if any professor fails to acquire Ph.D. qualification within the prescribed time limit, such professor shall not be allowed to cross the stage of increment but he would remain to be entitled for revised pay scale. However, the petitioners though are working on the post of Professor or equivalent to it and though no order of degradation or revision is passed, the petitioners have been denied the pay scale for the post of Professor. The petitioners have referred the earlier petition filed by them and have also stated that in view of the recommendation made by respondent No.1 to the State Government, the petitioners were entitled to get salary of Professor in the revised pay scale of Rs.1500-2500. The petitioners have thus challenged the order passed by the State Government of rejecting their claim of the pay scale for the post of Professor. 3. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 University and also by reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2-State Government and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits and even the University has also filed Additional Affidavit. 3. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 University and also by reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2-State Government and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits and even the University has also filed Additional Affidavit. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the University and the Government in their reply affidavits is that the petitioners were not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Professor as prescribed by the University and therefore, the petitioners cannot be made eligible for pay scale prescribed by the UGC and that the petitioners were in fact working on the post of Associate Professors and they were given the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor with benefit of revision of pay scale for the said post and the petitioners had exercised their option for such pay scales and even accepted the benefit of revision of pay scales for the said post with arrears. The contentions about delay, laches and res judicata are also raised by the respondents. 4. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Gunvant B. Shah appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were given promotion on the post of Professors vide orders dated 17.5.1974 in the pay scale of Rs.500-1250. Mr. Shah submitted that since the petitioners were transferred employees, they were governed by the recruitment rules existed prior to 1.6.1972 as provided in the notification dated 8.4.1974 at Annexure-C, and therefore, being qualified for the post of Professor, they would be entitled to the benefit of UGC pay scale of Rs.1100-1600 and then further revision of Rs.1500-2500. Mr. Shah submitted that the qualification prescribed by the University to get the benefit of UGC pay scale was prospective in nature and could not be applied in the case of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners were required to be treated as qualified for the post of Professor to get the benefit of UGC pay scale. Mr. Mr. Shah submitted that the qualification prescribed by the University to get the benefit of UGC pay scale was prospective in nature and could not be applied in the case of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners were required to be treated as qualified for the post of Professor to get the benefit of UGC pay scale. Mr. Shah submitted that even as per the notification issued by the University, prescribing the qualification for different posts including the post of Professor, the petitioners and other employees were entitled to acquire the qualification of Ph.D. within the prescribed time limit of 5 years which was extended to 8 years and since the petitioners had acquired the qualification of Ph.D. within the said time limit, the petitioners were entitled to get revised UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. Mr. Shah submitted that the benefit of revised UGC pay scale opted by the petitioners for the post of Associate Professor since was given with effect from 1.6.1972, the same could not be treated in lieu of the pay scale for the post of Professor. Mr. Shah submitted that once the appointments of the petitioners on the post of Professors were regularized in the month of February 1978, the petitioners became entitled for UGC pay scale for the post of Professor from the date of their promotions to the post of Professor. Mr. Shah submitted that since in Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioners, the petitioners were permitted to agitate the claim for pay scale for the post of Professor and since in subsequent petition filed by the petitioners, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the State Government to take decision on the representation/recommendation made by the University for conferring the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professors to the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners in the present petitions could not be said to be barred either by principle of res judicata or delay and laches. Mr. Shah submitted that the petitioners are legitimately entitled to the revised UGC pay scale for the post of Professor and therefore, such claim of the petitioners cannot be denied by the respondents simply on the ground that the petitioners got benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor. Mr. Shah thus urged to allow the petitions. 5.1. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Mr. Shah thus urged to allow the petitions. 5.1. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied on the following decisions:- (1) Decision of this Court dated 18.2.2009 in Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2004 and allied matters; (2) In the case of Jai Gopal Sharma Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 575; (3) In the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2013)4 SCC 152 . 6. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan appearing for respondent No.1 University submitted that the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria of qualification to get the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the petitioners were though issued provisional promotion orders for the post of Professors, however, subsequently, since the University decided to confer the benefit of UGC pay scale for which the petitioners opted in the year 1975 and since such pay scales were to be given considering the qualifications required for different posts and since the petitioners were found to have held the qualification for the post of Associate Professors, the petitioners were given benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor, for which the petitioners actually worked till they were subsequently selected by the University for the post of Professors. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the petitioners having given option to accept the UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professors and got benefit with arrears with revised pay scale for the said post till they were selected for the post of Professors, the petitioners are not entitled to claim UGC pay scale for the post of Professor for the period till they were actually selected for the post of Professors. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that though the petitioners were transferred employees, however, by virtue of the subsequent notification issued by the University dated 3.7.1973 and 25/29.9.1975 prescribing criteria for the UGC pay scale as per their qualifications, the petitioners were found entitled to such UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor. Mr. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that though the petitioners were transferred employees, however, by virtue of the subsequent notification issued by the University dated 3.7.1973 and 25/29.9.1975 prescribing criteria for the UGC pay scale as per their qualifications, the petitioners were found entitled to such UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor. Mr. Chauhan submitted that since the petitioners were conferred the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professors, provisional promotion orders for the post of Professors were never implemented and even in service-books of the petitioners, they have been shown to have worked as Associate Professors. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the benefit of UGC pay scale is not automatic but it is subject to adoption by the University. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the University having adopted the UGC pay scales and decided to give such pay scale subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria fixed by the University and since the petitioners did not fulfill criteria for pay scale for the post of Professor, the petitioners were rightly not given the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that if the petitioners were really working on the post of Professor, the petitioners having filed first petition in the year 1981 could have claimed the pay scale for the post of Professor. However, they chose to seek declaration for getting the pay scale equivalent to the post of Professor while working on the post of Assistant Professor. Mr. Chauhan therefore, submitted that the claim put forth by the petitioners now in the present petitions for the revised UGC pay scale for the post of Professor is not only barred by the principle of resjudicata but also by delay and laches. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the State Government has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not qualify to get the pay scale for the post of Professor. Mr. Chauhan thus urged not to interfere in the decision of the State Government and reject the petitions of the petitioners. 6.3. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has relied upon the following decisions:- (1) In the case of M.P. Palanisamy and others Vs. A. Krishnan and othersreported in (2009)6 SCC 428 , (2) In the case of Mohd. Sartaj and Another Vs. 6.3. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has relied upon the following decisions:- (1) In the case of M.P. Palanisamy and others Vs. A. Krishnan and othersreported in (2009)6 SCC 428 , (2) In the case of Mohd. Sartaj and Another Vs. State of U.P. And othersreported in (2006)2 SCC 315 ; (3) In the case of Indian Airlines officers’ Assn. Vs.Indian Airlines Ltd. And others reported in (2007)10 SCC 684 ; (4) In the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others reported in (2008)10 SCC 1 . 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval appearing for the State Government while adopting the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that when the petitioners were granted provisional promotions in the year 1974, there was no sanction from the Government. Mr. Raval submitted that even otherwise, such promotions were not implemented on account of the petitioners having opted for UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor. Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioners have worked as Associate Professors and have not qualified to get the UGC pay scale for the post of Professor till they were actually selected for such post. Mr. Raval submitted that simply because there was a direction by this Court to consider the recommendation made by the University, the petitioners do not become automatically entitled to UGC pay scale. The petitioners since did not satisfy the requisite criteria for UGC pay scale, the State Government has rightly rejected the recommendation made by the University for the pay scale of Professor to the petitioners. Mr. Raval thus urged to dismiss the petitions. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the petition, it appears that by notification dated 3.7.1973, the University prescribed the qualifications for different posts, including the post of Professor. Thereafter, by notification dated 8.4.1974 at Annexure-C, the University decided to fill all vacancies existing in the posts transferred to the University from amongst the transferred employees according to the Rules of Recruitment of the Department/Institute/Aliabada School concerned which were immediately in force prior to 1.6.1972. 9. Thereafter, by notification dated 8.4.1974 at Annexure-C, the University decided to fill all vacancies existing in the posts transferred to the University from amongst the transferred employees according to the Rules of Recruitment of the Department/Institute/Aliabada School concerned which were immediately in force prior to 1.6.1972. 9. It appears that by notification dated 9.4.1974, the University decided to introduce scale of pay prescribed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research on the lines of scales of the pay recommended by the University Grants Commission for teachers in the Agricultural College, College of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Dairy Science College and other Institutions under the Gujarat Agricultural University. The pay scale proposed under the said notification for the post of Professor was Rs.1100-1600, which was subsequently revised to Rs.1500-2500 and the pay scale proposed for the post of Associate Professor or Readers was Rs.700-1250. 10. By two different orders dated 17.5.1974, the petitioners in two groups were promoted provisionally to the post of Professors in the pay scale of Rs.500-1250. 11. The University then decided to give benefit of UGC pay scale to the teachers for different post with effect from 1.6.1972 by fixing criteria dated 25/29.9.1975 at Annexure-G. Under these criteria, the teachers working on the post of Professor or its equivalent in the pay scale of Rs.500-1250 as on 1.6.1972 and possessing the qualifications prescribed by the University vide notification dated 3.7.1973-Annexure-D were considered eligible for UGC pay scale of Rs.1100-1600. The relaxation in the qualification of Ph.D. was given, provided the employee has experience of 10 years teaching after obtaining M.Sc. degree in Agriculture Faculty or Faculty of Basic Science and Humilities. It was further provided the Ph.D. degree might also be relaxed if there was more than 7 years’ experience in teaching to Research/ Extension after obtaining H.S. Science degree in the Faculty of Animal Husbandry. Further relaxation is also mentioned which is not much relevant. The teacher working as Associate Professor or equivalent in the scale of Rs.350-850 as on 1.6.1972 and possessing the qualification as per the above notification dated 3.7.1973 was considered eligible for UGC pay scale of Rs.700-1250 with effect from 1.6.1972 in the Faculty of Basic Science and Humilities and some relaxations also provided. The Government then vide resolution dated 21.2.1977 at Annexure-I decided to accept in principle the revision of pay scale on the lines of pay scale of UGC. 12. The Government then vide resolution dated 21.2.1977 at Annexure-I decided to accept in principle the revision of pay scale on the lines of pay scale of UGC. 12. However, the case put up by the petitioners and as contended by learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners is that since by notification dated 8.4.1974, existing vacancies on the transferred posts were to be filled in on the basis of the Recruitment Rules which were in existence prior to 1.6.1972, provisional promotions of the petitioners to the post of Professors vide order dated 17.5.1974 at Annexure-A in the pay scale of Rs.500-1250 were according to the rules prevailing prior to 1.6.1972 and therefore, the qualification for the post of Professor provided in the notification dated 3.7.1973 of the University at Annexure-D and the criteria for UGC pay scales fixed by the University on 25/29.9.1975 at Annexure-G will have no application to the case of the petitioners. Mr. Shah submitted that once the petitioners were governed by Recruitment Rules existing prior to 1.6.1972, the petitioners would be entitled to UGC pay scale of Rs.1100-1600 for the post of Professor with effect from 1.6.1972. 13. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners do not appear to be well-founded. The existing vacancies on the transferred posts, even if, were to be filled in as per the Recruitment Rules in force prior to 1.6.1972 then also, the criteria fixed by the University for giving benefit of UGC pay scale will apply to all teachers of the University. 14. The decision/notification for filling of the vacant transferred posts as per the rules prevailing prior to 1.6.1972 in the old pay scale is different than the criteria fixed for giving benefits of UGC pay scales to the teachers of the University, including the petitioners. 15. Though the University decided to introduce the pay scale on the lines of UGC pay scales for all teachers, however, the University clearly intended by laying down the criteria dated 25/29.9.1975 that the benefit of UGC pay scales would be available only to those teachers with effect from 1.6.1972 who would satisfy the criteria for the respective posts. It is required to be noted that unless the University had decided to adopt UGC pay scale for its teachers, the teacher could not have claimed such pay scale. It is required to be noted that unless the University had decided to adopt UGC pay scale for its teachers, the teacher could not have claimed such pay scale. Therefore, it was always open to the University to fix criteria for making the benefit of UGC pay scales available to its teachers and therefore, the benefits of UGC pay scale could not be given dehors the criteria fixed by the University. 16. Two main criteria were fixed vide policy dated 25/29.9.1975 at Annexure-G for claiming benefit of UGC pay scale with effect from 1.6.1972, viz. (1) a teacher who is to claim benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professor or Associate Professor or Assistant Professor was first required to satisfy that he was working on any of such posts as on 1.6.1972 and (2) he possessed the qualification for such post as per the notification dated 3.7.1973. On satisfying the above two conditions for a particular post, a teacher would become entitled to have his case considered for UGC pay scale for such post with effect from 1.6.1972 under the policy introduced by the University for giving benefit of UGC pay scale. 17. Undisputedly, the petitioners were not working on the post of Professor as on 1.6.1972. As per their case, they were given provisional promotions to the post of Professor on 17.5.1974. It appears that since the decision was taken to confer the benefit of UGC pay scale from 1.6.1972 for the respective posts, if held as on 1.6.1972, the petitioners could not be made entitled to UGC pay scale for the post of Professor from 1.6.1972 and therefore, they were conferred benefits for the post of Associate Professor from 1.6.1972 as they were fulfilling criteria for the said post and even opted to have the benefit of UGC pay scale for such post of Associate Professor by filling the option forms in the year 1975. 18. However, the question remains that since the University introduced the pay scales prescribed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research on the lines of the scale of pay recommended by UGC for its teachers, whether the petitioners since provisionally promoted in the year 1974 could have been made entitled to the benefit of UGC pay scales for the post of Professor. It is required to be noted that by notification dated 9.4.1974, introducing the UGC pay scales for different posts, including the post of Professor, the University clearly intended to confer the benefit of UGC pay scales only to those teachers for the posts for which they could satisfy the qualifications and other conditions. 19. There is no dispute about the fact that as per the above notification, the petitioners did not satisfy the qualification criteria to claim UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. Learned advocate Mr. Shah however submitted that since the petitioners were regularized on the post of Professor in the month of February 1978, they were entitled to UGC pay scale for the post of Professor and having considered that the petitioners were regularized on the post of Professors, the Court in Special Civil Application No.9993 of 1994 directed the Government to consider the recommendation of the Registrar of the University for the purpose of granting UGC pay scales to the petitioners for the post of Professor. Such contention also cannot be accepted as regularization of services for the post of Professor of some of the petitioners may benefit them to continue as Professors but such would never make them entitled to benefit of UGC pay scale unless they could fulfill the criteria of qualification, etc. laid down by the University. 20. In the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Damodar Nayak and Another reported in (1997)4 SCC 560 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph No.3 as under:- “3.The question limited to the notice is: whether the respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a Lecturer in 1978. The Government issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified Lecturers having minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. examination and appointed on or after 1-8-1977 in recognised non-Government Colleges would be eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a Lecturer in 1978. The Government issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified Lecturers having minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. examination and appointed on or after 1-8-1977 in recognised non-Government Colleges would be eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The Resolution dated September 13, 1985 issued by the Government prescribes the qualification for recruitment of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates that "candidate not holding an M. Phil degree should possess a high second class Master's degree i.e., 54% marks and a second class Honour/Pass in the B.A./B. Com./B. Sc. examination." Respondent No. 1 secured 53.9% marks, which is almost equivalent of 54% marks, on July 10, 1987.Therefore, the question arises: whether the second respondent is entitled to receive grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the first respondent from the date of his acquiring qualification or from the date of initial appointment? Admittedly, since the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on July 10, 1987, he will be eligible to the benefit of the grant-in-aid w.e.f. August 1, 1987 and onwards.” 20.1. In the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohantyreported in (2011)3 SCC 436 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos.68(xii), 69 and 70, as under:- “68. (xii) This Court in Damodar Nayak (supra) has categorically held that a person cannot get the benefit of grant-in-aid unless he completes the deficiency of educational qualification. Further, this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda ( AIR 2001 SC 3324 : (2001 AIR SCW 3554) (supra) upheld the termination of services of the appellant therein for not possessing 55% marks in Master Course.” 69. In view of the above, it stands crystal clear that a teacher who had been appointed without possessing the requisite qualification at initial stage cannot get the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme unless he acquires the additional qualification and, therefore, question of grant of UGC pay scale would not arise in any circumstance unless such teacher acquires the additional qualification making him eligible for the benefit of grant-in-aid scheme. The cumulative effect therefore comes to that such teacher will not be entitled to claim the UGC pay scale unless he acquires the higher qualification i.e. M.Phil/Ph.D. 70. The cumulative effect therefore comes to that such teacher will not be entitled to claim the UGC pay scale unless he acquires the higher qualification i.e. M.Phil/Ph.D. 70. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that terminating the services of those who had been appointed illegally and/or withdrawing the benefits of grant-in-aid scheme of those who had not completed the deficiency in eligibility/educational qualification or withdrawing the benefit thereof from those who had been granted from the date prior to completing the deficiency, may not be desirable as a long period has elapsed. So far as the grant of UGC pay scale is concerned, it cannot be granted prior to the date of acquisition of higher qualification. In view of the above, the impugned judgment/order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.” 21. In light of the above principles of law and since the University after adopting UGC pay scale decided to give benefit thereof subject to compliance of the criteria laid down by it for the teachers, the petitioners were not entitled to such benefit unless they satisfied the criteria to make them entitled to the UGC pay scale for the post of Professors. 22. It was, however, submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shah that after the petitioners were provisionally promoted, the petitioners all throughout worked as Professors and still they are not given benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professor till they passed through the selection process for the post of Professors. Mr. Shah submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay (supra), the petitioners were entitled to UGC pay scales for the post of Professor from the dates of their provisional promotions to the dates of their selection as mentioned in the list at page No.395 annexed with the Additional Affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University. 23. The Court finds that the decision in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay (supra), will have no application to the facts of the case. 23. The Court finds that the decision in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay (supra), will have no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that though the appellants therein were regularly appointed as Assistant Child Development Project Officers (ACDPO) in the Integrated Chief Development Services (ICDS) were temporary transferred to act as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in ICDS Projects in their existing pay scales and though they had been working continuously for almost 14 years on the transferred posts, discharging duties of the higher posts, they were not given the pay and salary in the pay scale of the post of CDPO. In such facts situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to pay salary and allowances to those appellants in the pay scale of the post of CDPO. In the case on hand, the University having adopted the UGC pay scale decided to confer benefit thereof only on satisfying the criteria fixed by it for all the posts. The provisional promotion of the petitioners were in the existing pay scale of the Professor as per the University pay scale. However, to get UGC pay scale for the post of Professor, the petitioners were required to satisfy the criteria fixed for all teachers. 24. The University has come out with Additional Affidavit stating that the orders of provisional promotion and regularization of such promotion were never implemented and given effect to as the University had decided to confer benefit of UGC pay scales with effect from 1.6.1972 for different posts held by the teachers in the University as on 1.6.1972 and the petitioners consciously exercised their option to have such benefits for the post of Associate Professors with effect from 1.6.1972 and even got such benefits with arrears and continued to have UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professors till they were regularly selected on different dates. Mr. Chauhan submitted that when the petitioners preferred first petition, being Special Civil Application No.1370 of 1981, they just asked for the pay scales equivalent to the post of Professors. Mr. Chauhan submitted that when the petitioners preferred first petition, being Special Civil Application No.1370 of 1981, they just asked for the pay scales equivalent to the post of Professors. Prayers made in para 16 of the said petition at page No.95 are reproduced herein-below:- “(A) that by an appropriate writ, direction and order of this Hon’ble Court, it be declared that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scales as being paid to other teachers holding the post of Professors and/or its equivalent post who were holding such post as on June 1, 1972 viz. the pay scale of Rs.1500-2500 and that each of the petitioners is entitled to such pay scales with effect from the date on which he was appointed to Class I post, whether as a Professor or its equivalent post and that the respondent herein be directed to fix the salary of each of the petitioners payable to him on the basis of the said pay scales as if the said pay scales were payable to him from the date on which he was appointed to the post of Professor and/or post equivalent thereto; (B) that the respondent herein be ordered and directed to pay to the petitioners all differences in salary from the date of each of the petitioners became Class I Teacher by appointment to the post of Professor or its equivalent post and calculated in the manner as stated hereinabove. (C)…. (D)….” 25. Learned advocate Mr. Shah contended that while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the said petition, the petitioners were permitted to agitate the claim for the pay scale of the post of Professors and that is how, the petitioners preferred second petition, being Special Civil Application No.9993 of 1994. 26. The Government has not accepted such claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not comply with the eligibility criteria to get UGC pay scale and the benefit of revised pay scale. 27. As stated above, since the petitioners were found to have qualified for the post of Associate Professors, they were given the UGC pay scale with effect from 1.6.1972 for the post of Associate Professors. The petitioners opted to receive such pay scale under the policy of the University on adopting the UGC pay scale. 27. As stated above, since the petitioners were found to have qualified for the post of Associate Professors, they were given the UGC pay scale with effect from 1.6.1972 for the post of Associate Professors. The petitioners opted to receive such pay scale under the policy of the University on adopting the UGC pay scale. Therefore, the petitioners very well knew that they were entitled to UGC pay scale for a particular post only if they were found matching with the qualification of such post as prescribed by the University. It is therefore, not open to the petitioners to contend that irrespective of the criteria laid down by the University while adopting UGC pay scale for the purpose of giving the benefit of UGC pay scale to its teachers, the petitioners would be entitled to UGC pay scale for the post of Professors as they were provisionally promoted and subsequently regularized. Once the petitioners accepted the pay scale for the post of Associate Professor under the said criteria with arrears and subsequently got themselves selected for the post of Professors, they would not be entitled to UGC pay scale for the post of Professors till they were selected. 28. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, however, relied on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2004 and allied matters so as to press his point that there was relaxation given in acquiring the qualification of Ph.D. degree and if a teacher does not acquire such qualification during relaxation period, he would be losing one increment till he passes out Ph.D. Mr. Shah submitted that since the petitioners acquired Ph.D. degree within the time limit prescribed by the University, the petitioners could be said to have qualified as per the criteria for UGC pay scale. 29. It is required to be noted that the relaxation for acquiring qualification of Ph.D. vide notification dated 18.9.1978 at page 69 was meant for those teachers who were appointed in UGC pay scale after 1.1.1973 and before 26.12.1977 when University changed rules for recruitment as required by Government. It did not apply to the petitioners. 29. It is required to be noted that the relaxation for acquiring qualification of Ph.D. vide notification dated 18.9.1978 at page 69 was meant for those teachers who were appointed in UGC pay scale after 1.1.1973 and before 26.12.1977 when University changed rules for recruitment as required by Government. It did not apply to the petitioners. However, as stated above, since by notification dated 9.4.1974, the University resolved to confer benefit of UGC pay scale to those teachers who fulfilled the qualifications for the respective posts as laid down by the University, the petitioners could not be made entitled to the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Professors. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the judgment relied in Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2004 will have no application. 30. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.