JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith. Since this was an urgent matter, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties in this writ petition at length. We have, therefore, issued rule to be heard forthwith. 2. This writ petition presents rather an unique problem which exposes the inadequacy of the University Rules in relation to the election to one of its bodies viz. the Board of Studies. Section 29 of Nagpur University Act, 1974 (for short, " the University Act") provides for composition of Board of Studies. Section 29(1) provides that there shall be a Board of Studies for every subject or group of subjects as prescribed by the statutes. Section 29(2) provides for the composition of the said Board of Studies. Clause (ii) of section 29(2) which is relevant for the purpose of this petition provides that the Board shall consist of not more that ten Heads of Departments in Colleges and recognised institutions teaching the subjects at the special, principal or major level, to be elected from amongst themselves, as prescribed by the Statutes. Section 29(5) refers to the powers and duties of the Board of Studies. The said powers and duties are as follows : (i) to recommend, upon reference to it by the Executive of Academic Council, or the Board of University Teaching and Research, or the Faculty concerned or otherwise, the courses of study in the subject or group of subjects within its purview; (ii) to recommend books, including text books, for such courses of study; (iii) to recommend to the Academic Council for being forwarded to the Executive Council for its approval, the preparation and publication of selections or anthologies of the writings or works of authors and other masters in any subject or group of subjects, together with a synopsis of the selections of anthologies, and the names of the authors and masters and of the persons who may, in its opinion, be appointed to make the selection; (iv) to address the Faculty or Faculties concerned regarding improvements in the course of study; and (v) to bring to the notice of the Academic of Executive Council, as the case may be, matters of importance relating to the examinations in such subject or groups of subjects. It is clear from the above powers and duties why the Heads of Departments in the Colleges teaching the subject concerned are included in the constitution of the Board of Studies. In the light of the above substantive provisions of section 29 of the University Act, we may refer to the relevant Statutes in accordance with which the Board of Studies in each subject or group of subjects has to be constituted. 3. Statute 23 framed under the University Act provides that there shall be a Board of Studies for every subject or group of subjects comprised in each Faculty as indicated in the said Statute. Under head V. the subjects in the Faculty of Commerce for which separate Boards of Studies have to be constituted, are given. The said subjects are as follows :--- (1) Accounts and Statistics, (2) Business Economics, (3) Commerce, (4) Business Administration and Business Management, (5) Languages including English and other Languages. Turning now to Statute 24, it provides for election of ten Heads of Departments in Colleges on Board of Studies. Para 1 is a definition Clause for the purpose of the said Statute. Clause (a) defines the expression "Head of the Department." The said definition is as follows :--- (a) "Head of Department" means the Teacher principally responsible for instruction, training and/or research in a subject, not below the rank of a Lecturer, designated as such. The Principal shall designate the Senior most Teacher as Head of the Department. Provided firstly that if the Principal wants to designate any teacher other than the senior most teacher he may do so after recording reasons in writing and with the approval of the Executive Council; Provided secondly that the Principal may designate himself as Head of the Department if he is the senior most teacher in the Department; Provided thirdly that no person shall be designated as the Head of the Department of more than one subject." Clause (b) defines the expression "Department" which definition is as follows :- "b) 'Department' means a Department of a College with reference to a subject or a group of subjects comprised in a Board assigned to the Faculty." 4. It is clear from reading the above two definitions together that the expression "Head of the Department" means a Teacher principally responsible for instruction, training and/or research in a particular subject and the criteria for designating the Head of the Department laid down in Clause (a) is that the senior most teacher should be designated as the Head of the Department. It is further clear from reading the said definition clauses that since the Department is subject-wise in each Faculty as defined in clause (b) the seniority should also be reckoned subject-wise. Para 2 of the said Statute 24 then provides that the Registrar of the University should prepare lists of Heads of Departments in the conducted constituent and affiliated Colleges, who would constitute the electorate for the election of 10 Heads of Departments to the concerned Board of Studies as provided in section 29(2)(ii) of the University Act. 5. We may now refer to the problem which we face in the constitution of the Board of Studies which is in question in the instant case is in the subjects in the Faculty of Commerce which are extracted in para 3 above from the Statute No. 23. There is a special feature of this Faculty of Commerce. All the subjects in this faculty are studied not only at under graduate level but at the post graduate level also. Hence unlike the other faculties post graduate degree is conferred in this faculty not in any particular subject as such, but as a post graduate degree in Commerce. Thus when a particular person is qualified by obtaining a post graduate degree in the Faculty of Commerce, he does not have any specialisation as such in any particular subject in this faculty since his post-graduate degree is not in any particular subject as such in this faculty but is a general post graduate degree in Commerce. It is with this post-graduate degree that he applies for a post of a teacher in a College of Commerce. His appointment in the College of Commerce is as a Lecturer in Commerce and not in any particular subject comprised in this faculty and extracted in para 3 above. It is with this post-graduate degree that he applies for a post of a teacher in a College of Commerce. His appointment in the College of Commerce is as a Lecturer in Commerce and not in any particular subject comprised in this faculty and extracted in para 3 above. It is this peculiar feature of this Commerce Faculty which has created some difficulty in determining the question as to who can be treated as Head of the Department in a particular subject in each college in this faculty for the purpose of the election to the Board of Studies in that particular subject because it is difficult to determine the seniority of a lecturer subjectwise in any of the subject comprised in this faculty and extracted in para 3 above from Statute No. 23 as the appointment of a Lecturer in this faculty is not in any of the said subjects but is broadly as a Lecturer in Commerce. 6. Turning now to the actual facts which have given rise to the instant writ petition, it may be seen that the respondent No. 3 had to furnish the list of the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the faculty of Commerce by 30-6-1988. Therefore, after preparing a draft list of the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the faculty of commerce in the light of the provisions of Statute 24 the respondent No. 3 issued a notice to all the Heads of different Departments and the senior college teaching staff on 28-6-1988 inviting their objections, if any, to the said list. The respondent No. 3 considered the objections to the proposed list of the Heads of the Departments for various subjects on 29-6-1988 and after allowing the objection raised by Shri S.M. Somani forwarded the list of the Heads of the Departments to the University. It was made clear by the respondent No. 3 in his notice dated 29-6-1988 that any objection received thereafter would be forwarded to the University. 7. It was made clear by the respondent No. 3 in his notice dated 29-6-1988 that any objection received thereafter would be forwarded to the University. 7. After the list of the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the Commerce Faculty was received from the respondent No. 3, the Registrar, who is the Returning Officer for the purpose of elections to the Board of Studies as per para 2 of Statute 24, forwarded the copies of objections received by him from certain Lecturers in Commerce in the College of the respondent No. 3 including the petitioner along with his letter dated 21-7-1988 to the respondent No. 3 for his comments. The respondent No. 3 in answer to the said letter dated 21-7-1988 communicated by his letter dated 28-7-1988 his comments upon the objections raised by some of the Lecturers in Commerce in his College. In para 15-A, of the said letter he has also shown the seniority of the Lecturers in Commerce in his college with reference to the dates of their appointment. The comments of the respondent No. 3 were again called by the Returning Officer by his letter dated 29-7-1988 which comments were communicated to him by the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 30-7-1988. The said latter of the respondent No. 3 dated 30-7-1988 contains the subjectwise teaching seniority of the Lecturers in his college in the Commerce Faculty. 8. After receiving the comments from the respondent No. 3, the Returning Officer by his order dated 1-8-1988 considered the objections raised by some of the Lecturers in Commerce including the petitioner to the list of the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the Commerce Faculty sent by the respondent No. 3, he held that as per Statute 24, the seniority of the Lecturers for designating them as Heads of the Departments in various subjects has to be reckoned subject wise and not on the basis of the general seniority from the dates of their appointment. As regards the question of subject wise teaching seniority of the petitioner the Returning Officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner on the ground that although he was at No. 3 in the general seniority of Lecturers in Commerce, he was at No. 2 position in the subjectwise seniority in the subject of Commerce as well as in the subject of Business Administration and Management. He further held that his claim for seniority in the subject of Business Economics cannot be considered because the college had not sent his name in the said subject. The only change he made in the list of the proposed Heads of the Departments was to designate Mr. Mundafale as the Head of the Department in the subject of Economics in the faculty of Social Science and Arts because he was basically a Lecturer in Economics and to designate Mr. Nandurkar as the Head of the Department in Business Economics as basically he was a Lecturer in Commerce. 9. The aforesaid order of the Returning Officer dated 1-8-1988 was challenged by the objectors including the petitioner in appeal before the Vice Chancellor but the same was upheld by him by his order dated 6-8-1988. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders of the Returning Officer and the Vice Chancellor in this writ petition. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before us. His first contention is that the seniority of Lecturers in this faculty of Commerce for designating them as Heads of the Departments in any of the subjects comprised in the said faculty should be reckoned not subjectwise but by their length of service on the basis of the dates of their appointment as Lecturers in Commerce in the colleges concerned because after the appointment as Lecturers in Commerce the said Lecturers are required to teach any of the subjects in this faculty which subject or subjects often change according to the roster in each academic session with the result that no subject is thus taught continuously by them for which reason their subjectwise seniority cannot be reckoned. His further contention, therefore, is that after thus reckoning their seniority on the basis of the dates of their appointment the first five Lecturers should in order of their seniority be designated as Heads of the Departments in the five subjects comprised in this faculty of Commerce. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is an alternative contention, the submission being that even if the subjectwise seniority were to be reckoned the petitioner was senior most in the subject of Business Economics in the respondent No. 3 college and he was, therefore, entitled to be designated as Head of the Department in the said subject. 11. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, contends that under Statute 24 subjectwise teaching seniority has to be reckoned and not the general seniority on the basis of the total length of service as a Lecturer. He has also refuted the contention of the petitioner that the same subject is not taught continuously in the college by the Lecturers in Commerce Faculty. It is urged by him that after any candidate is appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce in the respondent No. 3 college he is given one of the subjects for teaching which he had offered at his M.Com. Examination and he continues to teach that subject over the years normally except for a few changes made here and there. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the subjectwise teaching seniority of the Lecturer in the faculty of Commerce can be reckoned. It is further urged that if more than one subject is allotted to the same Lecturer during his service his subjectwise teaching seniority is reckoned in all these subjects by finding out as to for how may years he has taught each subject in the college. It is also urged that the main criteria in reckoning the subjectwise teaching seniority for the purpose of election to the Board of Studies is that the Lecturers concerned should have taught the subject concerned in the year in which the election to the Board of Studies is held. In support of the rival contentions the parties have filed their affidavits and documents. 12. In elaborating his first contention that in the Faculty of Commerce where according to the petitioner every time the subject allotted to the petitioner everytime the subject allotted to the Lecturer changes every academic session, the only criteria which can be applied is the criteria of seniority on the basis of total length of service, the learned Counsel for the petitioner even seeks to interpret Clause (a) of para 1 of Statute 24 containing the definition of the expression "Head of the Department" to mean that the criteria of seniority laid down therein is of the total length of service and not of subjectwise seniority. As already pointed out above, the expression "Department" is itself defined in Clause (b) of para 1 of Statute 24 with reference to the subject or group of subjects, which would mean that the Head of the Department is qua a particular subject or group of subjects. The other intrinsic evidence furnished by Clause (a) of para 1 of Statute 24 is that the said Head of the Department must be principally responsible for instruction, training or research in that subject. It is, therefore, clear that unless a teaches has taught a particular subject, he cannot be considered for being treated as Head of the Department in that subject under Clause (a) of para 1 of Statute 24. 13. By reason of the criteria of the seniority on the basis of the total length of service, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 College should have sent the names of the first five teachers in order of general seniority as the Heads of the Department in various subjects. It may be seen that in the general seniority list on the basis of the total length of service, the name of the petitioner is shown at serial No. 3, and therefore, the submission on his behalf is that his name should have been sent as the Head of the Department. As we have pointed out above, if the above `criteria is made applicable then even though a particular teacher might not have taught a particular subject, he could be appointed as the Head of the Department in that subject which would, therefore, frustrate the object of the constitution of the Board of Studies in that subject. The scheme of section 29 read with Statutes 23 and 24 does not admit of such interpretation. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that in Dhanwatey National College, Nagpur the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the Faculty of Commerce were determined on the basis of their total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce Faculty in the said college. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that in Dhanwatey National College, Nagpur the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the Faculty of Commerce were determined on the basis of their total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce Faculty in the said college. He has, therefore urged that since the criteria of the total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce and not the teaching seniority subjectwise is made applicable in the aforesaid college, the same criteria should be made applicable in the respondent No. 3 college also. In support of his above submission the only document filed on record in the instant writ petition is the final electoral rolls of the Heads of the Departments in the different subjects prepared by the Returning Officer and the name of Shri S.M. Patil at serial, No. 32 is brought to out notice to show that he is appointed as the Head of the Department in the subject of Business Administration and business Management on the basis of his total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce in the college. 14-A. It is not possible to hold merely on the basis of the final electoral roll referred to above that the designation of Shri S.M. Patil as the Head of the Department in the subject of Business Administration and Business Management in Dhanawatey National College is on the basis of the total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce. We cannot, therefore, hold that the criterion of total length of service as urged on behalf of the petitioner is made applicable in the said college. Even assuming that the said criteria of total length of service was made applicable in the said college, we do not know the facts and circumstances in which the said criteria were made applicable in the said college because if allotment of subjects to the Lecturers in Commerce in the said college has often changed with the result that it is possible for the said college to determine subjectwise seniority of the Lecturers in Commerce in the said college, the criterial of total length of service as a Lecturer in Commerce in the said college might have been adopted for designating the Heads of the Departments in various subjects in the Faculty of Commerce. Be that as it may, as we have held above, Statute 24 requires subjectwise teaching seniority and not total length of service as a Lecturer in the college in question. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. 15. The next question or ground to be considered in whether in subjectwise seniority in the subject of Business Economics, the petitioner is senior to Mr. Nandurkar, i.e. the respondent No. 4. As already referred to, it is this question of reckoning subjectwise seniority in the Faculty of Commerce which presents some problems. Although it is urged on behalf of the respondent No. 3 college that normally they allot a particular subject to be taught by a teacher at the time of his appointment in this faculty and that he continues to teach the same thereafter continuously, it does not appear even from the list sent by him to the Registrar that the same person has taught the same subject always. The said difficulty is sought to be solved by the College by stating that if the same Lecturer has taught two or more subjects, his name is included in all such subjects and his seniority is reckoned and shown in each of them by reference to the number of years for which he had taught each of such subjects. The respondent college has further applied a criterion that the seniority of a teacher in a particular subject would be reckoned only if he had taught the said subject in the year in which the elections to the Board of Studies are held. 16. The above criteria which are made applicable in the respondent No. 3 college for reckoning subjectwise teaching seniority for being designated as the Head of the Department in the subjects in the Faculty of Commerce are not laid down by the University under its Statutes or Rules. It is not in dispute that there is no uniform criteria made applicable in all the affiliated colleges in the faculty of Commerce for reckoning subjectwise seniority for being designated as Head of the Department in a particular subject comprised in the said faculty which would mean that the above criterion followed in the respondent No. 3 college is not uniformly followed in all the affiliated colleges in the faculty of Commerce. 16-A. It may be seen that the above criteria followed in the respondent No. 3 college may fail for determination of subjectwise seniority where allotment of subjects for teaching may change often in a particular affiliated college. It is even urged on behalf of the petitioner as referred to above that in Dhanawatey National College, Nagpur the Head of the Department in a particular subject in the Faculty of Commerce is designated on the basis of total length of service as a Lecturer. Since there is thus no uniform criteria of determining subjectwise seniority in the faculty of Commerce where the appointment of a Lecturer is not in a particular subject comprised in that faculty, it is necessary that the University must prescribe uniform rules for determination of the subjectwise seniority in the affiliated colleges in the said faculty. It is, however, not proper and possible for us to evolve uniform principles in this matter but it is necessary for the University to do so looking to the problems faced in this regard by the affiliated colleges in the faculty of Commerce and keeping in mind the mandate of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. Since it is not possible for us to evolve any uniform principles for determination of subjectwise seniority in the faculty of Commerce applicable to all affiliated colleges and since the University has also not laid down any rules or guidelines in this regard, the only thing we can do is to determine whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the respondent No. 3 college has adopted a criterian for determining subjectwise seniority which is consistent with the scheme and object of Statute 24 and whether it is a rational critirian which is no inhibited by Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 3 college has applied the criterion that the Lecturer who is to be designated as Head of the Department should have worked as a Lecturer in that subject in the year in which the elections are held to the Board of Statutes i.e. in this session and the next criterion made applicable then is to determine whether he has been continuously taking that subject in the previous years. If he has taught more than one subject, the criterion adopted is that his teaching seniority would determined in each of these subjects by reference to the year during which he taught the said subject/subjects in the respondent No. 3 college. It is clear from the powers and the duties of the Board of Studies given in section 29(5) of the University Act that the Board of Studies has to recomment to the Executive Council or the Academic Council the courses of study in the subject or group of subjects within its purview, to recommend the books for such courses of study, to suggest improvements in the courses of study and to report to the Academic Council or the Executive Council the matters of importance relating to the examinations in such subjects or group of subjects. It is therefore, clear that for a Lecturer to be designated as a Head of the Department in a particular subject he must have up to date knowledge and experience in the said subject from which point of view the criterion laid down by the respondent No. 3 college of determining whether the Lecturer has taught the subject concerned in the current session and whether he has been continuously taking the said subject in the previous years, is a valid and rational criterion which could be adopted by the college for reckoning the subjectwise seniority of the Lecturers in the Faculty of Commerce. 18. Turning now to the question of subjectwise seniority of the petitioner, it appears from the subjectwise seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has taught only the subjects of Commerce and the subject of Business Administration and Management. He is shown at serial No. 2 in the subjectwise seniority in these subjects. It is clear that the Lecturers at serial No. 1 are not only senior subjectwise but are also senior to the petitioner on the basis of the criteria of the total length of service as Lecturer. The petitioner has, made a claim that he is senior most in the subject of Business Economics which subject according to him, he was teaching since his appointment. 19. It is, however, the claim of the college that the petitioner has never taught this subject of Business Economics. The petitioner has, made a claim that he is senior most in the subject of Business Economics which subject according to him, he was teaching since his appointment. 19. It is, however, the claim of the college that the petitioner has never taught this subject of Business Economics. According to the college, Shri Nandurkar has taught this subject of Business Economics continuously since his appointment for which reason he was designated as the Head of the Department in the said subject. 20. In support of his aforesaid plea of seniority in the subject of Business Economics the petitioner has filed an affidavit before us today stating therein that from 1969-70, i.e. the year of his appointment, till 1978-79 and thereafter in this year he had taught the said subject of Business Economics. However, no documentary evidence is filed by the petitioner in support of his aforesaid affidavit. So far as the respondent college is concerned, in support of its affidavit it has filed a tabular statement before us for the previous five years commencing from 1982-83 to show that for the previous five years Mr. Nandurkar taught the subject of Business Economics whereas the petitioner did not. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent college that since the time-tables for the years prior to 1982-83 are not available, no such tabular statement can be filed for the years prior to 1982-83. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed the authenticity of the above statement made on behalf of the college that Shri Nandurkar taught the subject of Business Economics continuously. It is particularly pointed out to us that in 1982-83 Mr. Nandurkar took Economics of B.A. Classes and did not teach the subject in Commerce Faculty. However, it is clear from the further years that he had taken economics in Commerce Faculty also. 21. Be that as it may, it is clear that there is a serious dispute between the parties on the question of fact whether the petitioner and/or Shri Nandurkar taught the subject of Business Economics continuously from their dates of appointment or at any rate for how may years which dispute cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction of this Court because except for the time-tables for the previous five years which are also disputed by the petitioner there is no documentary evidence on record in this regard. Being a question of fact the petitioner should have raised it before the Returning Officer and the Vice-Chancellor which he had not done. The Returning Officer has, therefore, followed the subjectwise seniority list furnished by the respondent No. 3. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the above dispute for the first time in the writ jurisdiction. 22. It may, however, be seen that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner before us today, he has not taught the subject of Business Economics for a long time since 1978-79. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner taught this subject in this session, it is clear that Mr. Nandurkar has been teaching the subject continuously, whereas there is a long broken period in the case of the petitioner for which he did not teach this subject. In answer to the submissions made by the respondent College, there is not counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner that Mr. Nandurkar was not taking the classes in Business Economics continuously since the date of his appointment. As already pointed out by us, looking to the powers and duties of the Board of Studies, the Head of the Department needs to have in the subject concerned longer teaching experience as well as the up to date knowledge in the subject concerned which he can have it has taught the subject concerned in recent years just prior to the election of the Board of Studies. In this view of the matter Mr. Nandurkar has superior claims for being designated as the Head of the Department in the subject of Business Economics. 23. Taking all these factors, therefore, into consideration, we are inclined to maintain the decision of the University authorities in the instant case although as pointed out by us it is highly desirable that the university should make adequate and uniform rules for reckoning the seniority subjectwise in the Faculty of Commerce where the appointment is not qua a particular subject. 24. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances there would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. ------