JUDGMENT V. N. Khare, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has come up before this Court against the order dated 11th March 1989 passed by the Vice Chancellor intimating the constitution of the Executive Council of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. 2. There is a Degree College known as "Raja Harpal Singh Degree College, Singramau, District Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as the 'College'). The college is affiliated to the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur established and constituted under the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') The college imparts education upto degree classes and the petitioner is the Principal of the College. Section 20 of the Act provides for constitution of the Executive Council of the University. Clause (d) (ii) of sub-section (1) of the Section 20 of the Act provides that the three Principals and two other teachers of affiliated colleges, shall be selected as members of the executive council in the manner prescribed. By the impugned order the Vice Chancellor selected certain Principals of the post-graduate college, affiliated to the University, as Members of the Executive Council for the University. Since the petitioner was not selected as Member, he has approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, we propose to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is a seniormost Principal of the college affiliated to the University and as such is entitled to be selected as Member of the Executive Council of the University and the list of members of the Executive Council to the extent it shows that category falling under clause (d) (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, circulated by the Registrar of the University, be quashed. Whereas the case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not a seniormost principal of the post-graduate college and in fact the Principals of the post-graduate colleges under the Statutes are treated to be senior to the Principal of the degree colleges and thus the petitioner is not entitled to be selected as Member of the Executive Council of the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the Statute the selection of Principal of the college as Member of the Executive Council has to be done on the basis of seniorty alone and in support of his argument referred to Statute 3.03 of the First Statutes of the Gorakhpur University which, according to the parties, is also applicable to the Purvanchal University. 5. Statute 3.03 provides that the three members and two teachers of affiliated colleges who shall be members of the Executive Council under Section 20 of the Act, shall be selected by rotation in order of seniority as such principals or teachers as the case may be. For appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to quote Statute 3.03 : "Three Principals and two teachers of affiliated college who shall be a member of Executive Council under clause (ii) of Section 20 (1) (d) shall be selected by rotation in order of seniority as such Principals or teachers, as the case may be." 6. The principles for determination of inter se seniority of Principals of affiliated colleges has been laid down under Statutes Nos. 18.10 (b) and 18.12. THEse two Statutes are quoted below :- "18.10 (b)-The Principal of a post-graduate college shall be deemed senior to the Principal of a Degree College : 18.12-Where the seniority of a person as Principal is to be determined for the purpose of representation or appointment as such on a University authority, the length of service only as Principal shall be taken into account." A perusal of Statute 3.03 shows that selection of member of the Executive Council of the University under Clause (ii) of Section 20 (1) (d) is to be done by rotation in order of seniority. But Statute 18.10 provides that the Principal of a Post-graduate college shall be deemed senior to the Principal of a Degree College. Admittedly the petitioner is the Principal of a Degree College and not a post-graduate college and according to Statute No. 18.10 he has to be placed below the Principal of the Post-Graduate College in the list of seniority meant for selection for appointment as Member of the Executive Council of the University. Admittedly the petitioner is the Principal of a Degree College and not a post-graduate college and according to Statute No. 18.10 he has to be placed below the Principal of the Post-Graduate College in the list of seniority meant for selection for appointment as Member of the Executive Council of the University. It is further not disputed that the Principals who are appointed as Member of the Executive Council are the Principals of Post Graduate College and in view of Statute No. 18.10 they rant senior to the petitioner and were thus correctly nominated as Member of the Executive Council of the University. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to Statute No. 18 11 of the Statutes and on the strength of this Statute he argued that the seniority of a person as principal is to be determined on the basis of the length of service as Principal in the College for the purposes of appointment as member of the Executive Council of the University. According to us the Statute referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. We have already quoted Statute No. 18.12 above and for the purposes of the present controversy it is necessary also to quote Statute No. 18.11 which is as follows :- 18.11. Where more than one teacher are entitled to count the same length of continuous service, the relative seniority of such teacher shall be determined as below : (i) in the case of Principals, the length of substantive service as a Lecturer shall be taken into consideration ; (ii) in the case of Lecturers, the seniority in age shall be taken into consideration. " 8. A perusal of Statute No. 18.11 would show that it provides the method of determination of relative seniority of teachers in the college. In the case of Principal the length of service as lecturer had to be taken into consideration Whereas Statute No. 18.12 provides that when seniority of a Principal is determined for the purpose of representation and appointment as such on a university authority, the length of service as Principal is to be taken into account. Reading both the Statutes together 18.11 and 18.12 we are of the opinion that Statute No. 18 12 is exception to the Statute no. 18.11. Reading both the Statutes together 18.11 and 18.12 we are of the opinion that Statute No. 18 12 is exception to the Statute no. 18.11. Statute No 18.12 is not applicable for determining the inter-se seniority of Principal of Post Graduate and Degree Colleges but for the fixation of separate seniority amongst the Principals of Post Graduate Colleges or of the Degree Colleges as the case may be. In brief it provides for fixation of inter-se seniority of principals of two different classes mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that if we give such interpretation as above to clause 18.10 then Principal of a degree college will never get a chance for being nominated as Member of Executive Council for the University Learned counsel has given an illustration in support of his argument by saying that in case Mr. 'A' who happens to be senior most Principal of Post Graduate College and on that basis he is appointed as Member of the Executive Council and immediately after his term expires he retires, Mr. 'B' who has been appointed in his place would become senior to the Principal of the Degree College and thus would claim for being appointed as member of the Executive Council in preference to Principal of Degree College. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing this argument overlooks the word 'rotation' occurring the Statute No. 3.03 of the Statutes. The word 'rotate' means as given in the Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary to move round a centre or to perform one or more revolutions. In the New Lexicon Webster' Dictionary of the English Language the word 'rotate' means to turn around an axis, to happen in regular cyclical succession. 9. Thus we are of the opinion that the nomination as Member of the Executive Council has to be done by rotation and once the principal of college 'A' has enjoyed the privilege having been nominated to the Executive Council the offer next time shall be given to the principal of the college 'B' in order of seniority. 9. Thus we are of the opinion that the nomination as Member of the Executive Council has to be done by rotation and once the principal of college 'A' has enjoyed the privilege having been nominated to the Executive Council the offer next time shall be given to the principal of the college 'B' in order of seniority. The result of rotation would be that a Principal of a Post Graduate College once nominated to the Executive Council cannot get another term till the whole circle is completed and this position will not be changed even if on expiry of term as member of Executive Council Mr. 'A' retires and Mr. 'B' is appointed in his place. 10. In view of the above we find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.