JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged order No. Adm/TW/20/2690-96 dated 10.11.2020 issued by respondent No. 1-University whereby respondent No. 4 has been inducted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology by shifting a tenure post, on which respondent No. 4 was working, towards Revenue (Non-Plan) and giving her the benefit of past service. The challenge has also been thrown to the decision taken by the Kashmir University Council in the Meeting held on 05.06.2020 vide Resolution No. 80.20 of 2020 which became the basis for issuance of impugned order dated 10.11.2020. The petitioner has further sought a direction upon respondents 1 to 3 restraining them from conferring any benefit upon respondent No. 4 on the basis of impugned order dated 10.11.2020 to the prejudice of the petitioner. 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were appointed as Lecturers in Sociology against tenure posts for a period of two years on contract basis in terms of orders No. Adm/TW/06/4816-27 dated 07.08.2006 and Adm/TW/07/10422-34 dated 31.08.2007 respectively in pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 on the recommendation of the duly constituted selection committee of the respondent-University. The terms of these posts came to be extended from time to time in accordance with the decision taken by the University Council vide various resolutions passed from time to time. 3. It seems that the University Grants Commission (UGC) sanctioned 12 regular posts of Lecturers for the respondent-University and out of these 12 posts, one post of Lecturer was relocated to the Department of Sociology. The applications were invited for filing up of this post vide advertisement Notice No. Adm/TW/2011/3912-4012 dated 12.09.2011, whereafter interviews of the candidates were also conducted. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 participated in the said selection process but ultimately, it was the petitioner who was recommended for selection and she was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 plus AGP Rs. 6000 in terms of order bearing No. ADB/TW/11/5981-93 dated 28.11.2011. Respondent No. 4, however, could not be selected. 4. It appears that respondent No. 4 made a number of representations to the authorities of the respondent-University pleading for her regularization on the analogy of other faculty members of the Department. 15,600-39,100 plus AGP Rs. 6000 in terms of order bearing No. ADB/TW/11/5981-93 dated 28.11.2011. Respondent No. 4, however, could not be selected. 4. It appears that respondent No. 4 made a number of representations to the authorities of the respondent-University pleading for her regularization on the analogy of other faculty members of the Department. Opinion of the Principal Secretary to Government (Financial Advisor Universities) was sought by the respondent-University and vide his opinion dated 23.02.2018, the Principal Secretary suggested regularization of respondent No. 4 against an additional permanent vacancy which could be agreed to be created. The University Syndicate deferred the matter from time to time as writ petition for regularization of his services was filed by respondent No.4 before this Court. 5. On 05.06.2020, the matter was discussed in the meeting of Kashmir University Council and in the said meeting, a decision was taken for shifting of tenure post of Assistant Professor held by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Badar in the Department of Pharmaceutical Science towards Revenue (Non-Plan) of the University. It was further resolved that the resolution shall also be applicable to the University of Jammu in the case of respondent No. 4. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, respondent No. 4 withdrew the writ petition and accordingly vide impugned order dated 10.11.2020, the services of respondent No. 4, who was working as Assistant Professor in the Sociology against a tenure post, was shifted towards Revenue (Non-Plan). It was further provided that respondent No. 4 shall be on probation for a period of one year and her past service rendered in the University shall be counted for placement promotion as per UGC norms. 7. It has been contended by the petitioner that in the first instance, it was not open to the respondent-University to shift the tenure post towards Revenue (Non-Plan) and if at all the respondent-University could do so, the said post should have been put to advertisement and a proper selection process should have been followed for appointment of a person to the said post. It is the case of the petitioner that without adopting this course, the respondent-University has regularized the services of respondent No. 4 which is dehors the Statutes of the respondent-University. It is the case of the petitioner that without adopting this course, the respondent-University has regularized the services of respondent No. 4 which is dehors the Statutes of the respondent-University. The petitioner has also contended that even if, it is assumed that the services of respondent No. 4 could have been regularized by converting the tenure post into a permanent post, still then it was not open to the respondent-University to give benefit of past service to respondent No. 4 that too to the prejudice of the petitioner who has been appointed as Assistant Professor on substantive basis on a permanent post after undergoing proper selection process way back in the year, 2011. It is contended that by doing so, the respondent-University has tried to grant seniority to respondent No. 4 over and above the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in respect of impugned order dated 10.11.2020 is confined to counting of past service of respondent No. 4 as this would mean that the said respondent, who was appointed on a tenure post prior to the appointment of the petitioner, would steal a march over her in the matter of seniority. 10. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-University has submitted that so far as counting of past service rendered by respondent No. 4 in the University is concerned, it is clearly stated in the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 that the same shall be counted only for placement promotion as per UGC norms and it has nothing do so with the issue relating to the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has submitted that the seniority list issued by the respondent-University clearly shows that the petitioner has been placed in the seniority list much higher than respondent No. 4 and in the seniority list, the date of appointment of the petitioner is shown as the date on which she has been appointed on substantive basis, whereas date of appointment of respondent No. 4 has been shown as the date on which her services have been regularized by shifting of tenure post towards Revenue (Non-Plan). The learned counsel has also submitted that even in the case of the petitioner, the past services rendered by her in the University on tenure post were also counted for placement promotion in terms of UGC norms. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has submitted that respondent No. 4 at the time when she was appointed to the tenure post had undergone proper selection process and she was having the requisite qualification and experience at the time of her appointment to the said post. So by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is dehors the Statutes. It has been submitted that having regard to the fact that respondent No. 4 was appointed after undergoing proper selection process, she is entitled to not only counting of past service rendered by her but she is also entitled to seniority from the date of her initial appointment in the tenure post. 13. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is only concerned with her seniority vis a vis respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 should not be construed in a manner as to confer seniority position on respondent No. 4 over and above the petitioner as such, examination of the question whether it was open to the respondent-University to shift a tenure post towards Revenue (Non-Plan) and if so whether the respondent-University was obliged to put the said post to advertisement instead of regularizing the services of respondent No. 4 on the said post, would only be an academic exercise. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to return a finding on these issues, in these proceedings. Similarly, the contention of respondent No. 4 that she should be given seniority over and above the petitioner by counting her past services for the purpose of seniority is not to be examined in these proceedings because the said respondent has not challenged the seniority list issued by the respondent-University. 14. However, the apprehension of the petitioner that by counting past services rendered by respondent No. 4 in the University in terms of impugned order dated 10.11.2020, she may be ranked senior to her in the seniority list, has been taken care of by the stand taken by the respondent-University. 14. However, the apprehension of the petitioner that by counting past services rendered by respondent No. 4 in the University in terms of impugned order dated 10.11.2020, she may be ranked senior to her in the seniority list, has been taken care of by the stand taken by the respondent-University. As already stated that the respondent-University has categorically taken a stand that the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 is 10.11.2020, the date on which the impugned order was issued but her services rendered in the University are to be counted only for placement promotion as per UGC Norms. In fact similar treatment was given to the petitioner when she was substantively appointed but the past services rendered by her on tenure post were counted by the respondent-University for the purpose of placement promotion in terms of UGC norms. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance as to why, similar treatment has been given to respondent No. 4. 15. Even otherwise as per Clause (XIII) of Chapter-III of Statues Governing University’s teachers/officers, past service without any break as Assistant Professor or equivalent in the University etc. is to be counted for placement for Assistant Professor in senior scale/selection grade subject to the condition that the incumbent must have been appointed on the recommendation of the duly constituted selection committee. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 4 was not appointed by a duly constituted selection committee. The argument of learned counsel in this regard is without any substance as the respondent-University in its reply has clearly stated that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were appointed to tenure posts initially on the recommendation of a properly constituted selection committee. Thus, respondent No. 4 as also the petitioner both are entitled for counting of their past service for the purpose of placement promotion in higher grades in terms of UGC norms. 16. It is specifically stated by the respondent-University that for the purpose of seniority, the past service on a tenure post is not to be taken into account and it is for this reason that the petitioner has been ranked senior to respondent No. 4 in the seniority list. This takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner so far as the seniority position is concerned. 17. This takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner so far as the seniority position is concerned. 17. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in light of the stand taken by the respondent-University in their reply as indicated above as regards counting of past services of respondent No. 4 and the position of seniority vis a vis petitioner and respondent No. 4. Thus, no directions are required to be issued to the respondent-University in this writ petition.