JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, summoning the records from G.B. Pant University, Pantnagar, and quashing the impugned order dated 13-12-2019, contained in Annexure-1 to this petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for adding his past service for extending him benefits under Career Advancement Scheme, has been rejected. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to grant benefit of past service, rendered in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Rajasthan, to the petitioner for the period 01-04-1998 to 19-02-2007, for availing benefits under ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ with all consequential benefits of service. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 6 to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and Professor, adding his past service of 11 years and 10 months, under ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ with all consequential benefits of service.” 2. Petitioner is serving as Assistant Professor in Department of Veterinary Parasitology in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar. He was appointed to the said post vide order dated 09.06.2006. It is not in dispute that, before his appointment as Assistant Professor, petitioner was employed in Animal Husbandry Department of State of Rajasthan, where he was appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 24.03.1995 and the said post was re-designated as Veterinary Officer w.e.f. 01.04.1998. The post of Veterinary Officer, on which petitioner served, was carrying pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500. 3. After his appointment in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, petitioner made representation to add his past services rendered as Veterinary Officer, for availing benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. The Chief Personnel Officer of the University, vide order dated 07.01.2013, allowed petitioner’s representation and permitted adding his past services for grant of benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. The said order, however, was cancelled on 16.09.2013 by the Chief Personnel Officer. In the cancellation order, it was indicated that, in view of recommendation made by the concerned officers, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel the order dated 07.01.2013. The said order, however, was cancelled on 16.09.2013 by the Chief Personnel Officer. In the cancellation order, it was indicated that, in view of recommendation made by the concerned officers, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel the order dated 07.01.2013. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 16.09.2013 by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 475 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2018, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the University that Competent Authority will consider petitioner’s claim for benefit of past services, as per law, within two months. The Chief Personnel Officer, thereafter, passed an order dated 21.01.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 21.01.2018 in the order), in which it was provided that the services rendered by the petitioner as Veterinary Officer, shall be counted for benefits under Career Advancement Scheme. The Chief Personnel Officer, however, passed another order on 06.07.2019, whereby the earlier order dated 21.01.2019 was kept in abeyance, till further orders. Challenging this order passed on 06.07.2019, petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 498 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.10.2019. Paragraph no. 5 of the said order is reproduced below:- “5. Needless to state that, in case the respondent-University is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced as that of other four Assistant Professors, to then extend to him the benefits which the University has chosen to extend to the other four Assistant Professors. The entire exercise, culminOating in a reasoned order being passed afresh, shall be completed with utmost expedition and, in any event, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The University shall take a decision uninfluenced by the order, impugned in this Writ Petition, whereby the earlier order was kept in abeyance.” 4. In terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.498 of 2019, the Chief Personnel Officer has passed a reasoned order on 13.12.2019, in which it is held that petitioner cannot be given benefit of services rendered as Veterinary Officer for Career Advancement Scheme, as he do not meet the requirement of Government Order dated 12.07.2002. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 13.12.2019. 5. The impugned order is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 13.12.2019. 5. The impugned order is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. It refers to paragraph no.16 of the enclosure to Government Order dated 12.07.2002, which is extracted below: “Para 16. Previous service without any break as an Astt. Professor, or equivalent, in a University, College, National Laboratory or other scientific organizations e.g. CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR and as a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of Asstt. Prof. Or equivalent in Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided that:- 1. The post was in an equivalent grade/Scale of pay as the post of an Asstt. Prof. Or equivalent. 2. The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Asstt. Professor or equivalent. 3. The candidates for direct recruitment should have applied through proper channel. 4. The concerned Asstt. Prof. Or equivalent possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC as Asstt. Prof. Or Equivalent. 5. The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure of the concerned institution. The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration Ad-hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided: (a) The ad-hoc service was of more than one year duration; (b) The incumbents as appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection committee; and (c) The incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc service, without any break.” 6. As petitioner had contended that four other similarly situate persons were given benefit of past services, thus, he is entitled to similar treatment, therefore, Chief Personnel Officer has discussed the case of those four persons, with whom petitioner had claimed parity. 7. Regarding Dr. S.K. Shukla, it was held that he was appointed as Demonstrator in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, on 05.08.1971. He was appointed as regular Veterinary Officer in the University w.e.f. 01.08.1980 and he was appointed as Assistant Professor against a leave vacancy in the University w.e.f. 08.03.1983 and he was given regular appointment as Assistant Professor (Medicine) in the University w.e.f. 14.08.1986; the Board of Governors, in its 150th Meeting held on 10/11.09.1993, decided to grant U.G.C. pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 to Mr. Shukla for the period between 01.08.1980 to 07.08.1983. 700-1600 to Mr. Shukla for the period between 01.08.1980 to 07.08.1983. The benefit of past services for Career Advancement Scheme was given to Dr. S.K. Shukla by an order passed in the year 1993, therefore, the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, issued by the State Government, are not applicable to him. 8. Regarding Dr. S.P. Singh, it is stated that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the University in U.G.C. pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 31.01.1992; earlier he had served as Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of State of Uttar Pradesh, between 25.09.1984 to 30.01.1992. Mr. Singh left service of Animal Husbandry Department (State of Uttar Pradesh) before issuance of Government Order dated 12.07.2002 and benefit of past services was granted to him, pursuant to resolution passed by Board of Governors, in its 205th Meeting held on 04.04.2008, vide order dated 21.05.2008. It is observed that the case of Dr. S.P. Singh shall be placed before the Board of Governors for reconsideration and further action shall be taken, as per the decision of Board of Governors. 9. Regarding Dr. Balvinder Singh, it is stated that he was appointed as Professor in the University on 22.05.1995 and earlier he served as Veterinary Officer in State of Punjab between 14.07.1989 to 19.05.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500; he was given benefit of past services, pursuant to resolution of Board of Governors passed on 16.10.2008, which has been cancelled by Board of Governors in its 228th Meeting dated 24.10.2016; the issue, whether he is entitled to benefit of past services, shall be placed for reconsideration before the Board of Governors and necessary action shall be taken, as per the decision of Board of Governors. 10. Regarding Dr. Prakash Bhatt, it is mentioned that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the University w.e.f. 01.02.2003; earlier he was serving as Veterinary Officer under the Uttarakhand Government in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500, he was given benefit of past services, pursuant to resolution of Board of Governors passed on 16.10.2008; the said resolution has been cancelled by Board of Governors, in its 228th Meeting held on 24.10.2016, thus, Dr. Prakash Bhatt do not meet the eligibility conditions mentioned in paragraph no.16 of the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, for adding past services. 11. 8,000-13,500, he was given benefit of past services, pursuant to resolution of Board of Governors passed on 16.10.2008; the said resolution has been cancelled by Board of Governors, in its 228th Meeting held on 24.10.2016, thus, Dr. Prakash Bhatt do not meet the eligibility conditions mentioned in paragraph no.16 of the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, for adding past services. 11. Regarding the petitioner, it is mentioned in the impugned order that since he was not serving as Assistant Professor or an equivalent post in a University, College or other Scientific Organization, therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of past services, in view of the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.07.2002, therefore, the past services rendered by him in State of Rajasthan cannot be added for Carrer Advancement Scheme. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s case is identical to Dr. S.K. Shukla, Dr. S.P. Singh, Dr. Balvinder Singh and Dr. Prakash Bhatt, therefore, denial of benefit of past services to petitioner alone amounts to hostile discrimination. 13. The said contention is bereft of merit. From the impugned order, it is revealed that decision to grant benefit of past services to Dr. S.P. Shukla was taken by the Board of Governors, in its 150th Meeting held on 10/11.09.1993; at the relevant point of time, the field was unregulated and the Government Order dated 12.07,2002, whereby conditions of eligibility for adding benefit of past services were laid down, cannot be made retrospectively applicable to Dr. S.K. Shukla, therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity with Dr. S.K. Shukla. Past services rendered by Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. Balvinder Singh were permitted to be added by Board of Governors, in its meeting held on 04.04.2008 and 16.10.2008 respectively. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the decision taken in the resolution dated 16.10.2008 has been cancelled by Board of Governors in its subsequent meeting held on 24.10.2016, it is not known whether the resolution passed on 04.04.2008 has also been cancelled or not, however, it is mentioned in the impugned order that the matter of Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. Balvinder Singh shall be placed for reconsideration before the Board of Governors. Regarding Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. Balvinder Singh shall be placed for reconsideration before the Board of Governors. Regarding Dr. Prakash Bhatt, it is mentioned in the impugned order that he also do not meet the requirement of Government Order dated 12.07.2002, as the services, which he rendered before appointment as Assistant Professor, were not on a teaching post, but on the post of Veterinary Officer. Thus, the Competent Authority in the University has considered the matter in great detail and has held that petitioner is not entitled for adding past services rendered in State of Rajasthan for claiming benefit of Career Advancement Scheme in the University. Reasoning given in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Petitioner cannot claim negative equality with persons, who were given some benefit in disregard of the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.07.2002. The Competent Authority has mentioned in the impugned order that the case of Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. Balvinder Singh shall be placed for reconsideration before the Board of Governors, as decision to grant benefit of past services to them was taken after 12.02.2002, when Government Order laying down eligibility conditions was issued. It is mentioned in the impugned order that Dr. Prakash Bhatt do not meet the requirement of Government Order dated 12.07.2002, therefore, he is not entitled to count past services for Career Advancement Scheme. 14. A faculty member serving in the University has to meet the requirements of Government Order dated 12.07.2002 for availing benefit of past services rendered in some other organization. In State of Rajasthan, petitioner served as Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department, which is neither Educational nor Research/ Scientific Institution. It is not known whether pay scale of the post of Veterinary Officer, against which petitioner was serving, was equivalent to the pay scale admissible to Assistant Professor. A person, with Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science, can be appointed as Veterinary Officer; while, for appointment as Assistant Professor, Master’s Degree is needed. Without meeting the requirements of aforesaid Government Order, no one can get his past services counted for claiming benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. 15. A person, with Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science, can be appointed as Veterinary Officer; while, for appointment as Assistant Professor, Master’s Degree is needed. Without meeting the requirements of aforesaid Government Order, no one can get his past services counted for claiming benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. 15. Since in the impugned order, it is mentioned that out of four persons, with whom petitioner claimed parity, one is not entitled to the benefit given to him and the case of other two persons has to be placed before the Board of Governors for reconsideration, therefore, we hope & expect that the University will take necessary corrective steps in this regard to ensure that the norms laid down in Government Order dated 12.07.2002 are applied uniformly to all faculty members. Deviation from the norms for giving benefit to one faculty member causes injustice to others, therefore, it is incumbent upon the University to apply such policy decisions evenhandedly to similarly situate persons. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. However, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioner shall be granted all benefits, which are available to Assistant Professors, including Career Advancement Scheme if he has become due with reference to the date of his appointment as Assistant Professor in the University, as per law, within three months.