University seniority and personal promotion turn on the legally effective date of cadre entry, not an earlier notional promotion date.

A writ petition challenging seniority in the cadre of Professor in Physics was not to be rejected for alternative remedy where the dispute raised a pure question of law and had already remained pending for a substantial period. Seniority under the university statutes was to be determined by continuous substantive service in the cadre, and personal promotion could take effect only after the statutory scheme was duly amended to prescribe the necessary service length and qualifications. Because those statutory requirements came into force only later, the respondents' earlier promotion date could not govern seniority, and the appellant's substantive appointment was treated as earlier in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the statutory reference provision. (ii) Whether the appellant or the respondents was senior in the cadre of Professor in Physics, having regard to the statutory scheme for personal promotion and the university seniority statutes.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the statutory reference provision.

Analysis: The challenge raised a pure question of law concerning the validity and effect of the seniority determination. The matter had already remained pending in the High Court for a substantial period, and the existence of a reference remedy did not justify non-suiting the appellant in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not liable to be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant or the respondents was senior in the cadre of Professor in Physics, having regard to the statutory scheme for personal promotion and the university seniority statutes.

Analysis: Seniority under the university statutes was to be determined on the basis of length of continuous substantive service in the cadre. Personal promotion under the statutory scheme could take legal effect only after the Act and the Statutes had been duly amended to prescribe the relevant length of service and qualifications. As those prescriptions came into force only on the later statutory amendment date, the respondents' promotion under the personal promotion scheme could not be treated as effective from the earlier date. The appellant's substantive appointment as Professor therefore carried an earlier legally effective date in the cadre.

Conclusion: The appellant was senior to the respondents in the cadre of Professor in Physics.

Final Conclusion: The seniority order made by the University could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to be placed above the respondents in the cadre concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where personal promotion depends upon statutory prescription of qualifications and length of service, such promotion becomes effective only when the enabling statutory framework is in place, and seniority in the cadre must be determined from the legally effective date of entry into that cadre.

---