JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners with the prayer primarily to set aside the office order dated 10.01.2014 and for revision of selection list dated 19.01.2014 (Annexure-P/1) and for recommendation of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Professor and for their upgradation to the academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/-with all consequential benefits. As both the writ petitions are having common facts and common prayer, the same are taken up for disposal, collectively. 2. The facts of the petition No.14925/2016 are taken up for consideration which will be applicable mutatis mutandis in the connected matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent-institution has introduced Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the purpose of promoting petitioners on the post of Professors from Associate Professor by office order dated 14.03.2012. Accordingly vide Annexure-P/2 dated 18.08.2009, guidelines were issued by HRD Ministry for revision of pay for teaching and other staff in centrally funded technical institutions (CITs). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that vide Annexure-P/7 on 30.06.2010 UGC regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff education 2010 were issued. As per the same, vide appendix-3, the method of formulation of scores for analysis of Academic Performance Indicator (API) in CAS promotions of University College teachers were formulated. Three respective categories were formulated. First category was Category 1Teaching, learning and evaluation related activities, Category-2-Co-curricular, extension and professional development activities, Category-3-research and academic contributions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that as per appendix-3 for the post of Associate Professor to Professor equivalent cadre percentage distribution of weighted points in the expert assessment at the scale of 100 was there, out of which minimum eligibility required for promotion was 50. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged and submitted that as per Annexure-P/8, application form for CAS internal faculty, the petitioner applied for humanities and social sciences and the date of eligibility for the post of Professor was 01.04.2010. As per the petitioner in terms of Annexure-P/9 after analysis of his application, he was called for interview having secured more than 50% marks on 07.01.2014. The list of eligible candidates was also enclosed to the said call letter. As per the petitioner in terms of Annexure-P/9 after analysis of his application, he was called for interview having secured more than 50% marks on 07.01.2014. The list of eligible candidates was also enclosed to the said call letter. The selection committee meeting was held on 10.01.2014, and to the shock and surprise of the petitioners that inspite of securing more than 50% marks, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and the selection committee did not recommend him for the promotion whereas, 34 similarly situated persons were promoted. 4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of guidelines issued by UGC and HRD Ministry dated 18.08.2009 and in terms of office order dated 09.07.2013 marked as Annexure-P/3, as the eligibility of the petitioner was from 18.08.2009 upto 22.03.2012. The criteria of eligibility of promotion was to be governed by the HRD Ministry’s notification dated 18.08.2009 wherein as per the criteria mentioned above on securing more than 50% marks under the three categories and their evaluation, promotion was mandatory irrespective of the interview. There was no power with the Selection Board for not recommending the petitioner from being eligible to be promoted to the post of Professor. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon judgments of Apex Court reported in Maharshtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi & Ors. [ 1991 (2) SCC 716 ], State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Kashinath Kher & Ors. [ 1996 (8) SCC 762 ], State of Rajasthan Vs. Sriram Verma & Ors. [ 1996 (6) SCC 493 ] and S.B. CWP No.4179/2013 titled as Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2016 (1) SLR 5] whereby, it has been consistently held that the committee considering promotion has to independently assess the merit and ability of each candidate from the reports and records etc. consistent with the weightage prescribed in the rules and then to determine the relative merit and ability of the officers. If the said is not done, judicial review is permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the selection committee has neither afforded any opportunity of hearing nor given any reason for not recommending the petitioners inspite they being eligible by securing more than 50% marks as per the guidelines of UGC and HRD Ministry. If the said is not done, judicial review is permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the selection committee has neither afforded any opportunity of hearing nor given any reason for not recommending the petitioners inspite they being eligible by securing more than 50% marks as per the guidelines of UGC and HRD Ministry. Learned counsel further contended that the writ petition should be allowed in terms of the above said prayer. 5. Per contra counsel for the respondents has made a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition as the impugned order in question was passed on 19.01.2014 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2016. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have opted for further promotion in the year 2018 and therefore, they are estopped to challenge the same in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further contended that only when the petitioners have failed and not recommended, they are challenging the various circulars and proceedings of the selection committee and as per the rule of acquiescence and estoppel, the present writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-R/1 i.e. HRD circular issued on 14.03.2012 qua the promotion of faculty members of NITs under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Learned counsel further submitted that as per the said circular in terms of Clause (c) of Para 4 qua the NITs, no other circular but the guidelines issued by HRD Ministry dated 14.03.2012 will be applicable. Learned counsel further submitted that as per clause 4(e), no distinction can be made between internal and external candidates while assessing their suitability for higher post as per the practice prevalent in IIT system. Learned counsel also relied upon Para 4(g) that interviews of external and internal candidates and the selection criteria will be the same and the selection committee cannot distinguish and therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the other circular and procedural mechanism qua the NITs is not applicable and bad. As per the learned counsel for the respondents clause (m) and (n) of Para 4 have specifically given criteria for promotion and selection. Learned counsel further submitted that any upgradation can be done only on recommendation of duly constituted selection committee after formal interview and AGP criteria is necessary but not sufficient condition for change in designation. As per the learned counsel for the respondents clause (m) and (n) of Para 4 have specifically given criteria for promotion and selection. Learned counsel further submitted that any upgradation can be done only on recommendation of duly constituted selection committee after formal interview and AGP criteria is necessary but not sufficient condition for change in designation. In terms of Para 6, the said procedure was to be followed as the same was approved by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sarthak Rastogi placed reliance upon Apex Court judgments in Mahesh Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2010 (12) SCC 576 ], Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. [ 2010 (9) SCC 655 ], Dalpat Abasahed Solunke & Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors. [ 1990 (1) SCC 305 ] wherein he emphasized that once appropriate procedures are prescribed for selection/promotion and selection committee being expert in their field, the same cannot be interfered with by the Hon’ble Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have considered the respective arguments advanced by respective counsels, gone through the case records and analyzed the judgments cited at bar. The limited question applicable to present lis in question pertains to applicability of the guidelines/circular qua the promotion to the post of Professor from that of Associate Professor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon office order dated 09.07.2013 marked as Annexure-P/3 and has further relied upon Para 2. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per his application form his date of eligibility for promotion was 01.04.2010 and therefore, he was called as per Para 2 of the said office order. Notification issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 18.08.2009 will be in force and therefore as per appendix-3 and as per UGC guidelines once percentage of distribution of weightage points as per expert assessment meets out benchmark of 50%, he will be eligible for promotion. Learned counsel further submits that grant of 50 marks as per UGC guidelines and MHRD circular dated 18.08.2009 is admitted and not disputed by the respondents. The decision taken by the selection committee for not recommending vide order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure-P/1) is illegal, contrary to the UGC as well as MHRD guidelines applicable on him vide various office orders specifically 09.07.2013 (Annexure-P/3). The decision taken by the selection committee for not recommending vide order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure-P/1) is illegal, contrary to the UGC as well as MHRD guidelines applicable on him vide various office orders specifically 09.07.2013 (Annexure-P/3). The said argument of petitioner does not hold the field. It is apposite to quote the preamble of the office order dated 09.07.2013 which is reproduced as under:- In pursuance of the decision taken in the 26th meeting of the BOG held on 30th may 2013 (vide item No. T-26-6,4), the Board of Governors approved the following eligibility criterion for the purpose of screening of the candidature of applicants under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) at different level for appearing before the Selection Committee. 1. Upto 17.08.2009, the eligibility of the application shall be determined as per the guidelines of 5th CPC provided by the AICTE for the financial up gradation under CAS for different faculty cadres. 2. From 18.08.2009 up till 22.03.2012 the eligibility of an applicant shall be determined on the basis of the notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) for implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth pay Commission in the FCFIs and the minimum qualification defined there in for different faculty cadres (Notification no. 23-1/208-TS.II dated 18.08.2009. 3. From 23.03.2012 to the last date of filling the CAS application the eligibility of an applicant shall be determined on the basis of the Recruitment Rules for faculty provided by the Ministry and adopted by the Board of Governors in its 23rd meeting.” The aforementioned preamble sets out clearly that eligibility criteria for the purpose of screening of candidates under the CAS at different level for appearing before the selection committee will be governed by notification dated 18.08.2009 qua the powers of selection committee, the circular/guideline dated 14.03.2012 holds the field which is specifically applicable to National Institute of Technology like the respondents. The relevant portion of the said circular are reproduced as under:- “1. I am directed to refer to the various communications issued by this Ministry on the rules and regulations for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for faculty members of the National Institutes of Technology (NITs). The Ministry has received a number of representations from the faculty members of the NITs on the implementation of CAS. The issue had also been discussed in meetings of the Board of Governors (BoGs) of NITs. The Ministry has received a number of representations from the faculty members of the NITs on the implementation of CAS. The issue had also been discussed in meetings of the Board of Governors (BoGs) of NITs. Wherein concerns have been expressed. 4 (b) For a faculty member to gain advancement under CAS, he or she must satisfy the approved criteria under three broad heads: (I) a critical number of years in the lower level or designation and/or AGP, (ii) cumulative academic performance during the service period at eh current level in terms of teaching and research output as well as sharing institutional responsibility, and (iii) proficiency and knowledge in one’s chosen field of research and teaching. Superior record in all these three fronts qualifies a faculty member for advancement to a higher level. 4 (c) CAS has been in operation in Institutions under guidelines provided by AICTE and UGC. It is clarified that those norms and procedures are not applicable to NITs. CAS in NITs will be governed by guidelines and regulations defined by the Ministry of HRD and the Council of NITs. 4 (e) Any distinction between faculty recruited against vacant positions and those promoted under CAS will be abolished completely. It is clarified emphatically that unlike the UGC system, there is no distinction in qualification or achievement between internal and external candidates while assessing their suitability for higher post as in the practice prevalent in the IIT system. 4 (g) The constitution of the Selection Committee, the procedure and criteria of selection shall be same for internal and external candidates. There shall not be a separate or special interview for CAS selection; interviews should be conducted along with candidates for direct recruitment against vacancies, if any. 4 (I) When a vacancy occurs in the higher posts and there are serving faculty members with corresponding designation under CAS, they must be adjusted as per the respective seniority list before fresh advertisements are published For a faculty member, there should be no distinction drawn between a CAS post or a direct selection post, Reservation principles for catregories specified (Viz. SC/ST/OBC) should be honoured. 4 (m) The minimum duration prescribed by the Pay Commission for eligibility to move to higher AGPs are applicable only to performing faculty delivering quality academic output. SC/ST/OBC) should be honoured. 4 (m) The minimum duration prescribed by the Pay Commission for eligibility to move to higher AGPs are applicable only to performing faculty delivering quality academic output. A faculty member, apart from satisfying the minimum duration requirement, must meet academic and related standards set out in Recruitment Rules before being considered by the Selection Committee, Actual selection will depend on academic (research, teaching. Writing and academic administration) performance. 4 (n) The eligibility criteria (number of years in lower AGP) should be seen as necessary but not sufficient condition for upgradation of AGP or change of designation. Any upgradation can be done only on recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee after formal interview. The process for AGP upgradation should be as serious and dignified as that for change of designation. A candidate must convince the Selection Committee that he or she engaged in scholastic pursuits (teaching, research and management) to deserve an upgradation after his/her last advancement. 6. In view of the above, it is requested that the above guidelines may be adopted by the respective Bogs so as to undertake promotion under CAS while adhering to the basic principles of Government rules & regulations and relevant instructions. In case, any further difficulties are noticed within one year of the issue of these guidelines, the same may be placed before the Special Committee constituted by MHRD (vide order F. No. 33-7/2011-TS.III dated 14th March, 2012) for a decision thereupon. 7. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.” 9. On perusal of the said circular/guideline, it is more than clear that in terms of clause (c) the guidelines issued by the AICTE and UGC are not applicable to the NITs i.e. respondents. As per the said clause, the present circular dated 14.03.2012 will be applicable qua the CAS in NITs for the post screening level and for the purpose of interviews by the selection committee. In terms of clause (e) and (g) it is abundantly clear that the HRD has made clear that internal and external candidates will be treated at par while assessing their suitability for higher post and the procedure and criteria for selection shall be same for internal and external candidates. Any distinction between the faculty recruited afresh and promoted under the CAS will be abolished unlike the UGC system. Any distinction between the faculty recruited afresh and promoted under the CAS will be abolished unlike the UGC system. The selection committee will be entitled for recommendation on the basis of the interview and eligibility criteria would be necessary but not sufficient condition for upgradation of AGP and as per clause (n) “Any upgradation can be done only on recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee after formal interview.” 10. On consideration of circular dated 18.08.2009 issued by HRD, office order dated 09.07.2013 which was applicable qua the screening before the appearance before the selection committee for interview, and other office orders and on the analysis of UGC norms dated 30.06.2010 marked as Annexure-P/7 and appendix for giving minimum marks prior to interview and further placing reliance on specific circular dated 14.03.2012 issued qua the NITs under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and promotion therein. 11. This court is of the view that in terms of Para 4 Clause (c), (g), (n) discussed above for the purpose of promotion of faculty members of NITs under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) post screening date 14.03.2012 will apply. As per clause (c) of that circular/guideline, any guideline issued by AICTE and UGC will not be applicable qua NITs. 12. No distinction can be made qua qualification or achievement between internal and external candidates while assessing their suitability for higher post. As per clause 4 (n), the eligibility criteria should be seen as necessary but not sufficient condition for upgradation of AGP or change of designation. Any upgradation can be done only on recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee after formal interview. The candidate has to convince the selection committee that he or she is engaged in scholastic pursuits to deserve an upgradation after his/her last advancement. 13. In the light of above guidelines dated 14.03.2012 applicable to NITs, the action of the respondents was completely justified. The expert committee/selection committee in terms of guideline dated 14.03.2012 had independence and jurisdiction to declare the candidate as eligible or ineligible for the promotion and decide their recommendation. UGC guideline dated 18.08.2009 was applicable till screening i.e. upto the level of selection committee. The expert committee/selection committee in terms of guideline dated 14.03.2012 had independence and jurisdiction to declare the candidate as eligible or ineligible for the promotion and decide their recommendation. UGC guideline dated 18.08.2009 was applicable till screening i.e. upto the level of selection committee. In the light of above discussions, the judgment cited by the petitioner qua the maintenance of record in consideration of the same by the committee are distinguishable, as in the present case, the expert committee has duly considered the candidature of the petitioners and the records are preserved with them. The contentions of the respondents regarding acquiescence, estoppel and delay and laches is not maintainable. However, the contention of the respondents qua the action of the respondents being justified and in accordance with applicable circular dated 14.03.2012 is proper, legal and rational and for the reasons stated therein and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is required to be dismissed. 14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.