ORDER : In all these cases, common relief (i.e. extend the service benefits to various posts under CAS) arises for consideration. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. All the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions have been appointed as Lecturers and different posts on different dates. They are working under Osmania University, Hyderabad, in various pay scales and were promoted from time to time as per their eligibility. All are entitled to get promotion to their respective higher posts and its benefits on completion of 10 years of service under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short, "CAS"). The respondent University is duty-bound under the Regulation to conduct CAS twice in a year. But they did not do so. 2.1 The petitioners contended that the University issued a circular on 11.02.2019 for implementation of CAS putting cut-off date as 08.03.2019. Subsequently the same was extended up to 30.03.2019 vide proceedings dt.11.03.2019. The said notifications have not been processed. While pending the same, the University issued another circular dt.23.08.2019 under CAS/applications called for exercising option for new UGC regulations-2018 with the cut of dt.06.09.2019 and extended the same up to 16.09.2019. All the petitioners have applied for the same within the time. Thus, the respondent University issued circulars one after the other without conducting the interviews as contemplated under the scheme. 2.2 It is the further contention of the petitioners that they are eligible in terms of Regulations 2010, in Regulations 2018, 6.3.IV and V. The UGC regulations 2010 and 2018 have been adopted by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dt.29.06.2019, respectively. The petitioners have submitted their respective applications in terms of Circular dt.23.08.2019 and are eligible for promotion under CAS. Still, the respondent University did not conduct an interview for promotion under CAS. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions by directing the respondent University to hold CAS interview before their retirement in terms of the Circulars dt.11.02.2019 and dt.23.08.2019 and also the UGC Regulations on Minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Minimum of Standards in Higher Education 2010 and 2018. 3. Counter has been filed by the respondent University. Respondent admitted in their counter all the applications submitted by the petitioners within time as per the above circulars. 3. Counter has been filed by the respondent University. Respondent admitted in their counter all the applications submitted by the petitioners within time as per the above circulars. The main contention of the respondent University is that the University vide Letter No.MR-69/9/2019/Adm.II.1, dt.22.05.2019 requested the Government to nominate an academician as Chancellor's nominee to conduct the Career Advancement Scheme Selections, and the Chancellor's nominee on the Selection Committee is still awaited, due to which, the selection process was not conducted. The University is in the process of conducting the interview/selection of the teachers for movement to the next higher grade/promotion under CAS after an academician nominated by the Chancellor in terms of the University request Memo dt.22.05.2019. It is further submitted that as per the UGC Regulations – 2010 dt.30.06.2010 (Rule 6.3.9) and UGC Regulations – 2018 dt.18.07.2018 (Rule 6.3.V), the rules related for the promotion of the various posts under CAS are as follows : "For the promotion under the CAS, the applicant teacher must be on the rolls and in active service of the University / College on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee. But, now the all the petitioners are retired on different dates from service. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 4. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ch. Jagannath Rao learned Standing counsel for respondents. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while advancing his arguments, he brought to the notice of this Court that the above Writ Petitions are squarely covered by Order of this Court in W.P.No.27263 of 2012 and W.P.No.8158 of 2016 dt.07.02.2017, and the learned Standing counsel for respondents did not say anything against the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the UGC Regulations 2010 dt.30.06.2010 (Rule 6.3.9) and UGC Regulations 2018 dt.18.07.2018 (Rule 6.3.V). As per the UGC regulations 2010 dt.30.06.2010 (Rule 6.3.9) are as follows : "The incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and in active service of the Universities/Colleges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS promotion." The UGC regulations 2018 dt.18.07.2018 (Rule 6.4.C.V.) reads as follows: Professor (Academic Level 14) to Senior Professor (Academic Level 15) "A Professor can be promoted to the post of Senior Professor under the CAS. The promotion shall be based on academic achievement, favourable review from three eminent subject – experts who are not of the rank lower than the rank of a Senior Professor or a Professor having at least ten years’ of experience. The selection shall be based on 10 best publications during the last 10 years and interaction with a Selection Committee constituted in accordance with these Regulations." 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in view of the retirement of the petitioners, they are not entitled to get the benefits under CAS. But, it is not correct because as per the circulars all the petitioners have applied within the time. Even as per their pleadings in the counter which reads as follows : "The University is in the process of conducting the interview/ selection of the teachers for movement to next higher grade/promotion under CAS after the an academician nominated by the Chancellor's in terms of the University request Memo dt.22.05.2019. The Selection Committee is still awaited. Due to this, the selection process was not completed /conducted." 8. In view of the rival contentions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in conducting of interviews was due to non-finalization of the Chancellor’s nominee. For no fault of petitioners, they are put to unjust sufferance merely because of the State Government's delay to finalise the Chancellor's nominee. Petitioners cannot be denied consideration for the said benefit. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on this count though they are entitled in that scheme. The University cannot be allowed to contend that in view of the delay occurred by the State Government, the interview was not conducted. 9. It is pertinent to mention that as per the UGC notification dt.18.07.2018 under Rule (6.3.I) it is clearly mentioned with regard to time bound as follows : "….In order to avoid any delay in holding the Selection Committee meetings for various positions under the CAS, the University/College may initiate the process of screening/selection, and complete the process within six months from the receipt of application. Further, in order to avoid any hardship, the candidates who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these regulations, as on and till the date on which these regulations are notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or after the date, on which they fulfill these eligibility conditions." 10. Further, in order to avoid any hardship, the candidates who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these regulations, as on and till the date on which these regulations are notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or after the date, on which they fulfill these eligibility conditions." 10. Even as per the above rule also, the six months period is already over from the date of receipt of petitioners’ applications. On this ground also, the petitioners' request cannot be denied under the CAS benefits. Once the petitioners apply for the benefits under the CAS, the process has to be completed within the stipulated time, i.e. within a period of six months. Though they are retired from service, the respondent University at least cannot deprive their benefits under the CAS on the fault of the Government and the retirement of the petitioners. 11. In the similar circumstances this Hon’ble Court expressed its view in one common order in W.P.No.27263 of 2012 and W.P.No.8158 of 2016 dt.07.02.2017 as follows : “Merely because the State Government delayed in implementing this benefit till 20.2.2010 and University delayed it further till May, 2011 or much later, persons in service as on 1.1.2006 like petitioners cannot be denied consideration for the said benefit. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on this count and University cannot be allowed to contend that it can do the Stage -6 conferment exercise as and when it chooses, and petitioners should suffer for it’s inaction. It cannot be allowed to take advantage of it’s own wrong.” The above observation is also applicable to the present petitioners as they stand on a similar footing. Viewing the case from any angle, the University / Government is at fault in denying the petitioners' right. 12. In view of the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by directing the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioners and extend the benefit of the scale of various posts, respectively, to which they would have been eligible with effect from the date of their eligibility and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order in accordance with the law. 13. With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 13. With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.