JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner who is holding the post of Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan, has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the order dated 23.9.91 (Annexure-8) be quashed and the Respondents No. I and 2 be directed to appoint her on the post of Head of the Department of Political Science. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 21.7.89 (Annexure-5). A further prayer has been made for restraining Respondent No. 1 from allowing Respondent No. 3 Dr. D.B. Mathur to continue as Head of the Department beyond the term of his office. It has also been prayed that if any order is passed during the pendency of the writ petition in favour of Respondent No. 3, such order may also be quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Professor in Political Science, University of Rajasthan, by an order dated 5.6.89 issued on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 3 was also appointed as Professor in Political Science by the same order dated 5.6.89. Thus, both, the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 are holding the posts of Professor. However, the order dated 5.6.89 shows that while the petitioner has been appointed as Professor in Political Science (III World Politics and Development), Respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Professor in Political Science (Political Thought and Institution Structure and Process in Contemporary Indian Politics). 3. The Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan had appointed a committee to examine the matter relating to rotation of headship of various departments. The committee made recommendations which were placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 16.4.82. The recommendations of the Committee was approved by the Syndicate vide its resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82. 4. Dr. P.D. Sharma was appointed as Head of Political Science Department, University of Rajasthan, sometimes in the year 1985. His term came to an end on 28.8.88. The Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan passed an order that Prof. K.K. Kamal, who too was holding the post of Professor in the Department of Political Science, will function as Head of the Department with effect from 29.8.88. The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, issued an order to this effect on 26.8.1988. Prof. Kamal was appointed as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission sometime in the month of September, 1988. K.K. Kamal, who too was holding the post of Professor in the Department of Political Science, will function as Head of the Department with effect from 29.8.88. The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, issued an order to this effect on 26.8.1988. Prof. Kamal was appointed as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission sometime in the month of September, 1988. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor passed another order appointing Respondent No. 3 as Head of the Department of Political Science. The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, issued an order to this effect on 22.9.1988. 5. The case of the petitioner is that when Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science, her candidature was not considered although she was senior to Respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, Headship ought to have been offered to her instead of Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was illegally allowed to continue to function as Head of Political Science Department. The term of Respondent No. 3 was going to expire on 21.9.91, but in order to take advantage of further continuance, Respondent No. 3 submitted a representation dated 31.8.91 for allowing him to continue as Head of the Political Science Department. When Rajasthan University Teachers' Association came to know about the representation submitted by Respondent No. 3, the Association also submitted a representation to the Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, on 22.9.91, claiming that new Head of the Department of Political Science be appointed after expiry of the term of Respondent No. 3. However, in order to facilitate the continuance of Respondent No. 3, an interim arrangement came to be made by which Prof. Rama Kant, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences was asked to function as the Head of Department of Political Science by an order dated 23.9.91. The petitioner, on her part, submitted a representation against the continuance of Respondent No. 3 as Head of the Department and also against the order dated 23.9.91. Thereafter the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice dated 27.9.91. However, the Vice Chancellor took over the charge of the post of Head of the Department of Political Science. According to the petitioner, a decision to this effect was taken in the meeting of the Syndicate of the University. Further case set out by the petitioner is that Respondent Nos. However, the Vice Chancellor took over the charge of the post of Head of the Department of Political Science. According to the petitioner, a decision to this effect was taken in the meeting of the Syndicate of the University. Further case set out by the petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have deliberately violated the provisions contained in Resolution No. 6 of the Syndicate dated 16.4.82. Although she is the senior most available Professor and has a right to be appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science with the sole object to accommodate Respondent No. 3, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have resorted to the methodology of interim arrangement. In the first place Prof. Rama Kant was directed to look after the working and thereafter Respondent No. 2 himself assumed the charge of the post of Head of the Department of Political Science. This all has been done in order to facilitate continuance of Respondent No. 3, even though his term has expired on 21.9.91. Further case of the petitioner is that interim arrangement can only be made during the period of absence or leave and not against the clear cut vacant post. This all has been done in order to deny her the appointment to the post of Head of the Department of Political Science. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed two affidavits dated 3.10.91 and 7.10.91. In the first affidavit, she has stated that vide order dated 3.10.91 (Annexure-11) Respondent No. 3 has been allowed to continue as Head of Political Science Department. This has been done in the garb of the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.9.91. The term of Respondent No. 3 has been counted from 1.7.89. In the second affidavit, it has been stated that a meeting of the Sub-committee constituted by the emergent meeting of the Syndicate held on 27.9.91, no decision was taken in that meeting. Second meeting of the Sub-committee was held on 1.10.91 for consideration of the representation of Prof. D.B. Mathur and on the said date, the Sub-committee decided that the officiating/ temporary be excluded from the tenure of the Headship. While doing so, the Sub-committee did not take into consideration the representations submitted by the petitioner or by the Teacher's Association. Second meeting of the Sub-committee was held on 1.10.91 for consideration of the representation of Prof. D.B. Mathur and on the said date, the Sub-committee decided that the officiating/ temporary be excluded from the tenure of the Headship. While doing so, the Sub-committee did not take into consideration the representations submitted by the petitioner or by the Teacher's Association. Thus, the Sub-committee had acted with a predetermined mind to make way for continuation of Prof. D.B. Mathur as Head of the Department. 7. In their reply Respondent No. I and 2 have stated that the petitioner is not the senior most Professor in the Department of Political Science. In fact Dr. D.B. Mathur is the senior most Professor in the said Department and he is continuing as Head of the Department. The petitioner cannot be considered for Headship unless Respondent No. 3 completes his regular term of three years in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate and the Committee appointed by the Syndicate. Respondent No. 2 was appointed to assume the charge of Head of the Department of Political Science in the forenoon of 26.9.91 in an extraordinary situation in pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate taken in its special meeting held on 26.9.91. The Syndicate in that meeting decided to constitute a committee to identify the points not covered in the existing guidelines for rotation of Head-ship and to made rules thereon. The respondents have stated that petitioner cannot be appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science in preference to Respondent No. 3. Till Respondent No. 3 completes his regular term of three years, the petitioner has no right for consideration for appointment as Head of Department. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated that Professor P.D. Sharma has completed his tenure of Headship on 28.8.88. Prof. H.G. Pant was to be considered as Head of the Department but since he was facing enquiry, it was decided that the next senior most Professor, Prof. K.L. Kamal would function as Head of the Department of Political Science on a temporary basis. Prof. K.L. Kamal proceeded on leave without pay with effect from 16.9.88 to serve as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Subsequently, his request for premature retirement with effect from 15.6.89 was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and an order to this effect was issued on 7/9.6.89. Prof. K.L. Kamal proceeded on leave without pay with effect from 16.9.88 to serve as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Subsequently, his request for premature retirement with effect from 15.6.89 was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and an order to this effect was issued on 7/9.6.89. Appointment of Respondent No. 3 was made till further order vice Prof. K.L. Kama], who had proceeded on leave, but had not left the service of the University. Respondent No. 3 was considered senior most available person as per the rules of seniority prevalent in the University. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have further stated that before the expiry of the term specified in the order dated 21.7.89, Respondent No. 3 submitted a representation dated 31.8.91 claiming his right to continue as Head of the Department for three years with effect from 21.7.89. The matter was placed before the Syndicate. Prof. Rama Kant was to look after the work of Head of the Department of Political Science till the final decision of the Syndicate, but Prof. Rama Kant did not assume charge and subsequently, the Vice Chancellor assumed charge in terms of the decision of the Syndicate. The Respondents have justified their action of continuing Dr. D.B. Mathur as Head of the Political Science Department by asserting that prior to 1.7.89 Respondent No. 3 was carrying on the office of the Head of the Department as an interim arrangement since the senior most Professor to be considered for Headship, namely, Professor H.G. Pant, was facing an enquiry and the next senior most Professor, namely, Prof. K.L. Kama] had proceeded on leave. Respondent No. 3 can be considered for appointment as regular Head after Prof. H.C. Pant retired from service on attaining the age of super-annulation on 30.6.89 and Prof. K.L. Kamal had been permitted to retire prematurely with effect from 15.6.89, and this is the decision taken by the committee appointed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.9.91. After receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Vice Chancellor issued order on 2.10.91 and ordered that Prof. D.B. Mathur will continue as Head of the Department of Political Science for the regular term of three years commencing from 21.7.89. 8. Respondent No. 3 has filed a separate reply. After receipt of the recommendation of the Committee, the Vice Chancellor issued order on 2.10.91 and ordered that Prof. D.B. Mathur will continue as Head of the Department of Political Science for the regular term of three years commencing from 21.7.89. 8. Respondent No. 3 has filed a separate reply. In his reply, Respondent No. 3 has asserted that the petitioner has no legal right to be appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science. There is in fact no post of Head of the Department. Rather, it is a post which carries certain duties and responsibilities with it, as per Syndicate Resolution No. 6 passed in the meeting held on 16.4.82. The Vice Chancellor has absolute discretion in the matter of making appointment on the post of Head of the Department and the Vice Chancellor can, in an appropriate case, assign Headship ignoring a person who is entitled for Headship. Prof. H.G. Pant was left out even though he was the senior most and instead Prof. K.L. Kamal was asked to work as Head of the Department of Political Science on temporary basis. The other statement made by the Respondent No. 3 is that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. She has made a wrong statement that she is the senior most Professor in the Political Science Department. Thus, she has misled the Court on the question of seniority between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has asserted that he is the senior most Professor in the Department of Political Science. The Respondent No. 3 then asserted that the petitioner did not challenge the orders passed in the years 1988 and 1989. Further case of Respondent No. 3 is that he was appointed in the place of Dr. K.L. Kamal till further orders, who had joined as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Since the Respondent No. 3 stepped in the shoes of Dr. K.L. Kamal, he could not have been given a better status than Dr. K.L. Kamal. The Respondent No. 3 was not appointed in a regular manner as Head of the Department of Political Science. Alternatively, Respondent No. 3 has stated that even if Dr. Since the Respondent No. 3 stepped in the shoes of Dr. K.L. Kamal, he could not have been given a better status than Dr. K.L. Kamal. The Respondent No. 3 was not appointed in a regular manner as Head of the Department of Political Science. Alternatively, Respondent No. 3 has stated that even if Dr. K.L. Kamal was treated as a duly appointed Head of the Department of Political Science, he had proceeded on leave of 11 months and, therefore, there was no question of appointing Respondent No. 3 as regular Head of the Department in place of Dr. K.L. Kamal. Dr. K.L. Kamal was given leave of less than one year. Thus, the appointment of Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.9.88 can only be termed as a stop-gap arrangement. Regarding order dated 21.7.89 Respondent No. 3 has stated in para 3(d) of reply that the said order was not a correct order. The petitioner has given examples of Dr. N.K. Bhanawat, who was first asked to work as Head of the Department vide order dated 8.11.90 vice Dr. H.L. Maheshwari, who had gone on leave but when Dr. Maheshwari left the service of the University, then Dr. Bhanawat was appointed as Head of the Department in Hindi for a period of three years vide order dated 12.12.90. Example of Dr. lqbal Narain and Dr. T.K. Unnithan has been given in regard to the appointment in the Office of Vice Chancellor. The other contents of the reply are on the same lines of the reply filed by Respondent No.1 and 2. 9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2. In her rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that Prof. V.R. Mehta was appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science vide Shri H.C. Pant vide order dated 14.6.82 (Annexure-13). Thereafter, Prof. Igbal Narain was appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science vice Dr. V.R. Mehta vide order dated 18.6.85 (Annexure-14), and when Dr. Igbal Narain became Member-Secretary of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research somewhere in August 1985, Dr. P.D. Sharma was appointed as Head of the Department in Political Science vide order dated 28.8.85 (Annexure-15). Dr. lqbal Narain was permitted to retain his lief with the University of Rajasthan for a period of five years and against this lien vacancy, Dr. P.D. Sharma was appointed. P.D. Sharma was appointed as Head of the Department in Political Science vide order dated 28.8.85 (Annexure-15). Dr. lqbal Narain was permitted to retain his lief with the University of Rajasthan for a period of five years and against this lien vacancy, Dr. P.D. Sharma was appointed. Respondent No. 3 was appointed against a clear cut vacancy. Petitioner has further stated that the date 1.7.89 has no relevance because Dr. D.B. Mather was first appointed as Head of the Department on 22.9.88 and thereafter on 21.7.89. 10. Respondent University of Rajasthan has placed before the Court record in which consideration has been made in the University at the time of appointment of different Heads of Department and the record containing the minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted by the Syndicate as well as Resolution no. 2 dated 12.10.91 passed by the Syndicate by which the action of the Vice Chancellor in passing order dated 3.10.91 declaring the Respondent No. 3 will function as Head of the Department of Political Science for a regular term of three years from 1.7.89 on usual terms and conditions or till further orders, whichever is earlier, has been confirmed. 11. Before I deal with the merits of the case, two preliminary objections advanced by Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 deserve to be disposed of. Shri Rastogi has urged that Head of a University Department is neither a post nor an office and it is merely a working arrangement. A Professor or Reader serving in the University is required to discharge certain duties and any person can be asked to discharge the duties of Head of the Department. Therefore, no right can be claimed by any person to be posted as Head of the Department of a University. A person, who is appointed as Head of the University Department, does not get any monetary benefit. He does not get advantage in the matter of seniority or promotion and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that any of her legal or fundamental right has been infringed. Shri Rastogi invited my attention to Sections 9 and 14 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereafter referred to as 1946 Act') and argued that Head of the University Department is neither a teacher nor an officer of the University, as specified in Section 9. Shri Rastogi invited my attention to Sections 9 and 14 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereafter referred to as 1946 Act') and argued that Head of the University Department is neither a teacher nor an officer of the University, as specified in Section 9. He is not required to discharge any function under statutes or ordinances. Shri Rastogi further argued that the Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82 passed by the Syndicate of the Respondent University does not have the force of law and, therefore, no right can be claimed by a person on the basis of these administrative instructions/rules. Shri Prern Asopa, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submitted that Head of the Department is a post and even though it does not carry any emoluments with it, an important status is conferred on a person who is appointed as Head of the University Department. In the alternative, Shri Asopa submitted, that even if Head of the Department is not a post, it is an office of significance. A Head of the Department represents the office in various bodies of the University which play important role in the matters of appointment. A Head of the Department of the status of a Professor or a Reader is an ex-officio member of the Senate and also a member of the academic council. He is also member of the selection committee under the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereafter referred as 1974 Act'). Shri Asopa argued that in the light of these provisions, the holder of the office of the Head of the Department acquires a right to play an important role in the functioning of these bodies and, therefore, it cannot be termed merely as a working arrangement. Shri Asopa submitted that the rules/guidelines framed by the Syndicate have the force of law and are binding on the Respondent University. Even if these rules/guidelines are treated as not having the force of law, nevertheless these guidelines are administrative in character. The Syndicate has laid down the norms according to which Head of a University Department is required to be appointed and, therefore, all the functionaries of the University are bound to follow these rules/guidelines. 12. In order to decide the rival contentions, it will be proper to refer to certain provisions of 1946 Act and 1974 Act. The Syndicate has laid down the norms according to which Head of a University Department is required to be appointed and, therefore, all the functionaries of the University are bound to follow these rules/guidelines. 12. In order to decide the rival contentions, it will be proper to refer to certain provisions of 1946 Act and 1974 Act. The University of Rajasthan is a creature of 1946 Act. Section 2 of the Act of 1946 contains definition of the various terms used in the Act. Section 4 specifies the powers of the University Section 4(6) lays down that University shall have the power to appoint persons as Professors, Readers, or otherwise as University teachers. Section 9 specifies as to who shall be the officers of the University. They include : (i) The Chancellor, (ii) The Vice-Chancellor, (ii-a) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor, (iii) The Registrar, (iv) The Deans of the Faculties, (v) The University Librarian, and (vi) Such other persons in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be the officers of the University. Thus Section 9(vi) provides that other persons in the service of the University can be treated as.officers if they are declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University. Section 18 deals with the Senate - Composition and term of office. As per Section 18(1) 1. (viii), the Heads of the University Departments of status of a Professor or Reader, are ex-officio members of the Senate. As per Section 20, the Senate is required to make Statutes and it has power to amend or repeal the Statute object to confirmation by the Chancellor. It has the power to consider and cancel Ordinances. It is also required to consider and pass resolutions on annual report, the annual accounts and the financial estimates. The other functions, as may be defined by the Statutes are required to be performed by the Senate. Section 23 deals with the Composition and term of office of the Academic Council and by virtue of Section 23(1) (iii), the Head of University Departments of the status of a Professor or a Reader, are members of the Academic Council. Section 23 A specifies the functions of the Academic Council. As per Section 23 A (1), Academic Council shall have control and general regulation of and be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of teaching and examination within the University. Section 23 A specifies the functions of the Academic Council. As per Section 23 A (1), Academic Council shall have control and general regulation of and be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of teaching and examination within the University. Academic Council is required to make, amend and cancel regulations laying down courses of study and curricula, subject to the approval of the Syndicate. It has to propose to the Syndicate Ordinances concerning admission to the University or to its examinations, courses of study and curricula, schemes of examination and attendance. It is required to advise the Syndicate regarding the institution of University teaching posts in particular subject. It is required to advise the Syndicate regarding the institution of Boards of Studies and their strength, regarding University fees, regarding equivalence of examinations and recognition of the examinations of other bodies, regarding the University Library and the appointment of a University Library Committee, regarding the conditions of award and tenure of University scholarships and other benefits and regarding all other academic matters. It is required to refer matters to faculties and Boards of studies and it has also to promote research. Section 22 provides that subject to that condition, as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the Syndicate shall exercise the various powers specified in clauses (a) to (1) of Section 22. Section 22(g) authorizes the Syndicate to appoint officers (other than the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Deans of Faculties) teachers, and to define their duties, emoluments and conditions of service. 13. 1974 Act was enacted by the State Legislature in order to make provisions for special conditions of service of teachers and officers of the University in Rajasthan and for matters connected therewith. The provisions contained in 1974 Act are in the form of self contained code, so far as the process of selection and appointment of teachers and officers in the services of the various Universities in Rajasthan are concerned. The provisions contained in 1974 Act are in the form of self contained code, so far as the process of selection and appointment of teachers and officers in the services of the various Universities in Rajasthan are concerned. Section 2 (iii) of 1974 Act defines the term "Head of Department" as under: "Head of Department concerned" means the Head of Department of a subject taught in the faculty concerned and includes any person who for the time being performs the functions of the Head of Department in the University concerned in accordance with the relevant law." Section 2 (vi) defines the term 'Relevant law', which reads as under '"'Relevant law" means an enactment of the Rajasthan State Legislature establishing a University in Rajasthan and it includes the Statutes, Ordinances, bye-laws, rules notifications or orders made thereunder and as amended from time to time." Section 5 of 1974 Act provides for constitution of the selection committees. Section 5(1) lays down that for every selection of a teacher or an officer in a University, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of the following : "(i) to (iv) (v) such other persons as members specified in column 2 of the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers mentioned in column 1 thereof ...... The Schedule appended to 1974 Act shows that Head of Department concerned is a member of the selection committee for the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer and any other teacher having his pay in the scale of a Reader or a Lecturer. These various provisions show that although a Head of a University Department is not an officer of the University as specified in Section 9, nor any statute has been framed declaring Head of Department as an officer of the University, nevertheless he is a member of important bodies which play vital role in the functional set up of the University of Rajasthan. He is also a member of every selection committee constituted for appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the services of the University. A person appointed as a Head of the University Department has a right to play his role as a member of the Senate, the Academic Council as also a member of the Selection Committee. The functions which are discharged by the bodies like Senate, the Academic Council and the selection committees, are undoubtedly of important public functions. A person appointed as a Head of the University Department has a right to play his role as a member of the Senate, the Academic Council as also a member of the Selection Committee. The functions which are discharged by the bodies like Senate, the Academic Council and the selection committees, are undoubtedly of important public functions. The University of Rajasthan itself is a body created by Statute. It is clearly an instrumentality of the State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It falls within the ambit and scope of 'other authorities' used in Article 12 of the Constitution. The functions of the University are not only important but are vital to the society as a whole. A large section of the public is influenced and affected by the functioning of the University. Thus, there can be no doubt that the functions of the University are of public nature. The University acts through various bodies constituted under the Acts of 1946 and 1974 and, therefore, logical deduction is that the functions being discharged by these bodies are of immense public importance. Persons who constitute these bodies must, therefore, be held to be discharging the public duties and functions. It is true that there is no post of Head of University Department as is understood in the service jurisprudence, because a person appointed as Head of the Department does not get any pay or allowances and there is no direct relationship of master and servant between a Head of the Department and University but nevertheless it is an office which owe its existence to the various statutory provisions and holder of which is required to discharge statutory functions. It is therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Shri Rastogi that a Head of the Department is merely a working arrangement. Even in the reply, Respondent No. 3 himself has come out with the case that although there is no statutory post like Head of the Department, rather it is a post which carries certain duties and responsibilities with it. 14. On the question of the nature of the rules/guidelines/norms framed by the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan vide its Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82, it can easily be inferred from perusal of these rules/norms that the Syndicate has laid down general principles of policy which are to be followed for rotation of the headship. 14. On the question of the nature of the rules/guidelines/norms framed by the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan vide its Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82, it can easily be inferred from perusal of these rules/norms that the Syndicate has laid down general principles of policy which are to be followed for rotation of the headship. The tenure of headship is fixed as three years with a provision for extension up to a maximum period of two years and also to deal with the contingencies arising out of the absence or leave of the duly appointed Head of the Department. The Syndicate's authority to frame these guidelines has not been questioned by either of the parties, rather all of them have placed reliance on these guidelines/norms, though from different angles. Even if these guidelines do not have the force of law, nevertheless they contain the principles enumerating the policy of the University which is required to be followed in making appointment of Head of the Department. These administrative instructions/guidelines are of general application. The same are being followed by the University in making appointment of Heads of various University Departments for the last several years. Earlier to the Resolution of 16.4.82 there was Resolution No. 18 of 24.8.72 which was amended from time to time. In the year 1982, a committee was appointed by the Syndicate to examine the question of rotation of headship and on the basis of recommendations made by that committee Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82 was issued. These norms having been laid down by the University itself, the University is bound to follow the same. 15. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Seton, 359 U.S. 535 : Law Ed. (Second series) 1012 , where the learned Judge said : "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by(1) 359 U.S. 535: 3 Law Ed. (Second series) 1012which it professes its action to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. (Second series) 1012which it professes its action to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword." 16. In Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab and others, (1975) 3 SCC 503 , the question which arose before the Supreme Court related to the violation of the provisions contained in Government memorandum which contained administrative norms regarding fixation of seniority. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the memorandum contained merely administrative instructions issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power and it was within the competence of the State Government to issue such administrative instructions. The Court then proceeded to observe as under : "Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 was in the nature of administrative instruction, not having the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix an artificial date for commencing the length of continuous service in the case of some individual officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority in contravention of that clause. That would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two articles embody the principle of rationality and they are intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the 'State'. Where the State Government departs from a principle of seniority laid down by it, albeit by administrative instructions, and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16." 17. In Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 SC 1628, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the observations made by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Seton , Dr. In Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 SC 1628, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the observations made by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Seton , Dr. Amarjit Singh's case (supra) and also to Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 3 SCR 619 : AIR 1975 SC 1331 , and then proceeded to observe as under: "It may be noted that this rule, though supportable also as emanation from Article 14, does not rest merely on that article. It has an independent existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgement of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the equality clause of the United States Constitution, but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in England, the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what is stated at pages 540-41 in Prof. Wade's Administrative Law 4th edition. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions, increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socioeconomic justice being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relation-ship of direct encounter with State power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. The attainment of socioeconomic justice being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relation-ship of direct encounter with State power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. Whatever be the concept of the rule of law, whether it be the meaning given by Dicey in his 'The Law of the Constitution" or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and "constitution of liberty" or the exposition set-forth by Harry Jones in his 'The Rule of Law and the Welfare State", there is, as pointed out by Methew, J., in his article on "The Welfare State, Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in "Democracy, Equality and Freedom", "Substantial agreement is in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some right or denial of some privilege." 18. This very principle has been reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, (1983) 4 SCC 582 . In that case, their Lordships were dealing with the bye-laws framed in the society in exercise of the duties under the Societies Act. Though the bye-laws did not have the force of law, the Court held that once the society has framed the bye-laws laying down the norms for procedure of recruitment, it is bound to follow the same and an arbitrary departure from the norms would result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 19. Though the bye-laws did not have the force of law, the Court held that once the society has framed the bye-laws laying down the norms for procedure of recruitment, it is bound to follow the same and an arbitrary departure from the norms would result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 19. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that even if the norms/guidelines/rules framed by the Syndicate are treated as administrative, the University is bound to follow the same strictly and if in a given case it is found that there is an arbitrary departure of these norms, the action of the University is liable to be invalidated. The norms framed by the Syndicate show that rotation of headship is to be made only amongst the professors of the Department concerned. Clause 4(1) (a) provides that if number of professors are two or less, the headship is to be rotated amongst four senior most Professors (Professors and Readers) in the Department, and in case there is no professor, the Headship is to be rotated amongst four senior most Readers or less if the number of Readers is less than four. Thus, these norms do confer a right on the senior most professor and Reader to be considered for appointment as Head of the Department. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the submission of Shri Rastogi that breach of the norms/guidelines framed by the Syndicate does not give a cause of action to an aggrieved person to seek relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 20. The next contention of Shri Rastogi is that the Writ Petition should be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has misstated facts relating to her seniority. According to Shri Rastogi, the petitioner has knowingly claimed herself to be the senior most Professor. In fact, the Respondent No. 3 is the senior-most Professor in the Department of Political Science. This fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner and yet she stated in the petition and reiterated in the rejoinder that she is the senior-most Professor in the Department. In fact, the Respondent No. 3 is the senior-most Professor in the Department of Political Science. This fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner and yet she stated in the petition and reiterated in the rejoinder that she is the senior-most Professor in the Department. Shri Prem Asopa, learned counsel for the petitioner, countered this submission of Shri Rastogi by stating that the petitioner has made a claim of seniority on the basis of the rules and the orders of appointment issued by the University of Rajasthan. There-fore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has made a deliberate misstatement of facts before the Court. 21. Perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has claimed herself to be senior to Respondent No. 3 on the ground that in the order of appointment, Annexure-2, dated 5.6.89, she has been placed above Respondent No. 2. It is true that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have been appointed as Professors against the posts in different sub-branches of the subject of Political Science and the selections have been made by different selection committees, but Respondents No. 1 to 3 have contested the claim of the petitioner about seniority on the premise that as per the rules framed by the Syndicate vide Resolution No. 10 dated 15.10.89, Respondent No. 3 has a right to be placed above the petitioner because he was having longer length of service qua petitioner on the lower post. Having gone through the rule to which reference has been made in reply of Respondents No. 1 and 3, 1 am convinced that the petitioner cannot claim herself to~be senior to Respondent No. 3 in the cadre of Professors in the Department of Political Science. However, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has made a false statement or has deliberately made a statement in order to mislead the Court and, therefore, the petitioner should be non-suited on that ground. In my opinion, the Court has not been misled in passing any order in favour of the petitioner on the basis of her claim that she is senior to Respondent No. 3. 1, therefore, do not find any merit in the preliminary objections of Shri Rastogi relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 22. Docks are now clear for consideration of the controversy between the parties on the merits of the dispute. 1, therefore, do not find any merit in the preliminary objections of Shri Rastogi relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 22. Docks are now clear for consideration of the controversy between the parties on the merits of the dispute. Shri Prem Asopa, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been deprived of her right to be appointed as Head of the Department by unlawful orders passed in favour of Respondent No. 3. Shri Asopa urged that a clear vacancy of Head of the Department of Political Science had become available on completion of three years' term of Dr. P.D. Sharma. Professor K.L. Kamal was appointed vice Dr. P.D. Sharma on usual terms and conditions by order dated 26.8.88. Professor K.L. Kamal was then appointed as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Head of the Department by order dated 22.9.88 till further orders, on usual terms and conditions. On 21.7.89, another order was passed appointing respondent No. 3 for a residual period of the term i.e., up to 21.9.91 or till further orders whichever is earlier. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 had completed his full term of three years on 21.9.91 and there was no authority vested on Respondents No. 1 and 2 to reappoint or to continue Respondent No. 3 as Head of Political Science Department. However, in order to manipulate continuance of Respondent No. 3, a representation was submitted by him and special meeting of the Syndicate was called on 25.9.91. First Dr. Rama Kant was directed to look after the office of Head of Political Science Department and then the Vice Chancellor himself assumed the charge of the office on 25.9.91. Then in the garb of recommendations of the committee constituted by the Syndicate, the Vice Chancellor passed order on 2.10.91. Thereafter an office order was issued for continuance of Respondent No. 3 up to the date of his superannuation. This all has been done in order to defeat the right of the petitioner to be the Head of the Department of Political Science, argued Shri Asopa. His further submission is that the action of the Respondents No. I and 2 amounts to clear deviation from the guidelines framed by the Syndicate vide its Resolution dated 16.4.82. This all has been done in order to defeat the right of the petitioner to be the Head of the Department of Political Science, argued Shri Asopa. His further submission is that the action of the Respondents No. I and 2 amounts to clear deviation from the guidelines framed by the Syndicate vide its Resolution dated 16.4.82. The theory of 'regular vacancy' has been used as a disguise to allow the continuance of Respondent No. 3. Shri Asopa then argued that the vacancy which became available after completion of term of Dr. P.D. Sharma was clear vacancy. Dr. H.C. Pant, who was the next senior most Professor, was not appointed on account of pendency of enquiries. Dr. K.L. Kamal was appointed, but he left on account of his appointment in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There was no possibility of Dr. Kamal coming back because his appointment was for six years as per the provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Respondents knew that Dr. Kamal is not going to return. Precisely, for this reason Respondent No. 3 was appointed against the clear vacancy. The order dated 21.9.89 clearly stipulated that Respondent No. 3 was to continue for the residual period and not beyond that. This period came to an end on 21.9.91 and on that day, Respondent No. 3 ceased to be Head of the Department of Political Science. Shri Asopa submitted that Respondent No. 3 is merely an usurper of the office of the Head of the Department and he is, therefore, liable to be ousted from that office. Shri A.K. Sharma and Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for Respondents, on the other hand submitted that no vacancy was available for appointment of Respondent No. 3 on 22.9.88. In fact the vacancy was to be filled by appointing Dr. Pant, but on account of pendency of enquiries, Prof. K.L. Kamal was directed to function as Head of the Department of Political Science on a temporary basis. When Dr. Kamal was granted 11 months leave without pay on his appointment as Member of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and in his vacancy Respondent No. 3 was asked to look after the work of the office of the Head of the Department of Political Science. When Dr. When Dr. Kamal was granted 11 months leave without pay on his appointment as Member of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and in his vacancy Respondent No. 3 was asked to look after the work of the office of the Head of the Department of Political Science. When Dr. Kamal's application was ultimately accepted for superannuation, then a clear vacancy became available and from that day, Respondent No. 3 acquired a right to be appointed for a period of three years. Both Shri Sharma and Shri Rastogi, submitted that order dated 21.9.89 was issued under a mistaken impression about the term of appointment of Respondent No. 3 and since there were certain ambiguities, on a representation of Respondent No. 3, the Syndicate in its special meeting held on 25.9.91 constituted a committee to suggest the guidelines and rules to deal with such situations. The committee examined the whole matter and then opined that appointment of a Head of the Department in a vacancy than a regular one cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the term of three years. In the case of Respondent No. 3, the term begun only on 1.7.89 and, therefore, he will have a right to continue till 30.6.92 or till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. In taking this decision, the representation of the petitioner has also been considered. Shri Rastogi strenuously urged that in the decisions of academic bodies', this Court must not interfere and the very fact that the Syndicate had appointed a committee to look into the matter and the said committee had examined the matter before making a recommendation, goes to show that Respondents No. 1 and 2 have acted in bonafide manner. 23. Shri Rastogi strenuously urged that in the decisions of academic bodies', this Court must not interfere and the very fact that the Syndicate had appointed a committee to look into the matter and the said committee had examined the matter before making a recommendation, goes to show that Respondents No. 1 and 2 have acted in bonafide manner. 23. Paras 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 6 passed in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 16.4.82 constitute the centre point of controversy and, therefore, it will be proper to quote them ad verbatim : "(4) The Committee examined the whole matter from all its angles, took into account its implications as also the impacts of the rotation of Headship and resolved to recommend as follows : Keeping in view the present circumstances the rotation of Headship of the Department in the University be not dispensed with immediately, but the existing system of rotation of Headship needs substantial improvement along with the following lines : (i) The Headship of the Department be rotated only amongst the Professors of the Department concerned provided that : (a) Where the number of Professors is two or less, the Headship be rotated amongst four senior most persons (Professors and Readers) in the Department; or less if the number of Professors and Readers in the Department is less than four; ((b) Where there is no Professor, the Headship shall be rotated amongst four senior most Readers; or less if the number of Readers in the Department is less than four; (c) If there is only one Reader in the Department, efforts be made to get one more post of Reader created in the Department for ensuring adequate and timely growth of the Department, and the Headship be rotated only after the second Reader joins; (d) if there is neither a Professor nor a Reader, in the Department, the Headship of the Department may be assigned to the senior most Lecturer and the Vice Chancellor may take necessary arrangements for over setting the work of such Department through the agency of the Dean/Director of the Post-graduate School/Studies of the University be made. (ii) The tenure of Headship of the Department be raised from 2 years to 3 years. (ii) The tenure of Headship of the Department be raised from 2 years to 3 years. In case where the Vice Chancellor at his discretion feels that the retention of a particular person as Head beyond the tenure is necessary for completing any Academic Project/ Research Project or work in hand, his term may be extended for one academic year or more by the Syndicate. If for any reason the Vice Chancellor at his discretion feels that a change in the Headship of a Department even prior to the completion of the term of the existing incumbent is necessary in the interest of the Department, a change in the Headship of the Department be made. (iii) It shall be a part of duty of the Professor to work as Head of the Department when entrusted to undertake the same unless the Vice Chancellor is convinced with the reasons for exempting him from Headship of the Department when his turn is due. (5) During the period of absence on leave of the duly appointed Head of the Department, the senior most teachers in the Department shall carry on the Office of the Head of the Department provided that if the absence ex-tends over a period three months or more, the Vice Chancellor, may keep in view the circumstances entrust the work to a next senior teacher in the Department. If, however, the vacancy in the office of the Head of the Department is to last or likely to last over a period of a year or more, the Vice-Chancellor may appoint another Head of the Department in accordance with these rules in the vacancy." The plain language of para 400 clearly shows that the tenure of Headship is 3 years. This period can be extended by the Vice Chancellor for a period of one year at a time if the retention of a particular person as Head beyond the tenure is necessary for completing any academic project or work in hand. The maximum extension of two years can be granted by the Syndicate. The Vice Chancellor also has a discretion to make a change in the headship of the Department even prior to the completion of the term of the existing incumbent, if it is considered necessary in the interest of the Department. The maximum extension of two years can be granted by the Syndicate. The Vice Chancellor also has a discretion to make a change in the headship of the Department even prior to the completion of the term of the existing incumbent, if it is considered necessary in the interest of the Department. The power of extension either by the Vice Chancellor or by the Syndicate or power of effecting change in the headship of a Department before the expiry of the term can only be exercised on the basis of objective consideration and after proper application of mind. In case of curtailment or truncation of the tenure of headship of any particular person, compliance of the principles of natural justice is very much implicit. The person who is going to be affected by reduction in his term of headship, will have to be heard before any order adversely affecting his status can be passed. The principle of audi alteram partem has to be read as inherent in the exercise of the discretionary power by the Vice Chancellor. Para 5 of the Resolution No. 6 deals with various facts of the contingency which may arise on account of absence or leave of the duly appointed Head of the Department. If a person duly appointed as Head of the Department, proceeded on leave, the senior most person of the Department shall carry on the office of Head of the Department. If the absence extends over a period of three months or more, the Vice Chancellor can entrust the work to the next senior person in the Department. However, if the vacancy in the office of the Head of the Department is to last or likely to last over a period of an year or more, then the Vice Chancellor may appoint another Head of the Department in accordance with the rules in the vacancy. Thus, in the first contingency, the senior most teacher is empowered to carry on the office. In the second contingency, the Vice Chancellor can entrust the work to the next senior teacher in the Department and in the third contingency, the Vice Chancellor can appoint another Head of the Department in accordance with the rules contained in Resolution dated 16.4.82. The use of three different phraseologist in the Resolution of Syndicate is not without significance. In the second contingency, the Vice Chancellor can entrust the work to the next senior teacher in the Department and in the third contingency, the Vice Chancellor can appoint another Head of the Department in accordance with the rules contained in Resolution dated 16.4.82. The use of three different phraseologist in the Resolution of Syndicate is not without significance. The Syndicate had taken into account all the various possibilities which may crop up after appointment of a Head of the Department and, therefore, it made provisions to meet with such contingencies. At the same time, it kept in mind the fact that complications may not arise on account of another person looking after the work of Headship during the absence or leave. Therefore, in case of absence or leave for a short duration of less than three months, the next senior teacher is empowered to carry on the office. Thus, the next senior person can look after the routine work. In the second case, where the absence of leave exceeds three months, the Vice Chancellor has to pass an order entrusting the work to the next senior person and in the third case, the Vice Chancellor is entitled to make appointment of new Head of the Department in accordance with the rules. 24. Although the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and their replies have tried to confuse the issue by bringing in the case of Dr. H.G. Pant, but reference to the case of Dr. Pant, in my opinion is totally misplaced. Admittedly, Dr. Pant was facing enquiries. He was never appointed as Head of the Department. Whether Dr. Pant had a right to be appointed as Head of the Department while facing enquiries into some charges, is not a question which requires determination in this writ petition and none has made any claim on his behalf. The fact is that Dr. Pant was never appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science after 29.8.88, i.e., after completion of term by Dr. P.D. Sharma. So Dr. Pant did not occupy or held the office of Head of the Department had no right, much less a vested right, was acquired or accrued in favour of Dr. Pant and since he did not hold office, there could be no question of his having a lien against the office of headship. P.D. Sharma. So Dr. Pant did not occupy or held the office of Head of the Department had no right, much less a vested right, was acquired or accrued in favour of Dr. Pant and since he did not hold office, there could be no question of his having a lien against the office of headship. Logically no question of his remaining absent or on leave from the office of Headship could arise. Furthermore, Dr. Kamal was appointed to function as Head of the Department of Political Science vice Dr. P.D. Sharma and not vice Dr. H.G. Pant. Dr. P.D. Sharma had completed his term on 29.8.88. He could neither be treated as absent nor as having proceeded on leave after 29.8.88. 25. Now the point which requires to be examined is as to whether appointment of respondent No. 3 made by order dated 22.9.88 was a stop-gap arrangement or a fortuitous appointment, or he was duly appointed as Head of the Department. Perusal of order dated 22.9.88 shows that the respondent No. 3 was appointed by the Vice Chancellor. If he was merely to carry on the office, no order was required to be passed. If he was to be entrusted with the work, the order would have contained a clear stipulation to this effect and term would have also been specified. However no term has been specified in the order dated 22.9.88. According to the version of Respondents No. I and 2 themselves, the respondent No. 3 was the senior most person in the Department after Prof. K.L. Kamal. Since Respondent No. 3 was the next senior most person in the Department of Political Science, ordinarily, he had the right to be appointed as Head of the Department after Prof. Kamal. Therefore, appointment of Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.9.88 was an appointment made in accordance with the rules/guidelines approved by the Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82. He was duly appointed as Head of the Department. The phrase 'duly' if construed in the light of provisions contained in paras 4 and 5 of Syndicate's Resolution No. 6, it becomes clear that appointment of senior most Professor or Reader in a clear vacancy will be treated an appointment duly made. Prof. He was duly appointed as Head of the Department. The phrase 'duly' if construed in the light of provisions contained in paras 4 and 5 of Syndicate's Resolution No. 6, it becomes clear that appointment of senior most Professor or Reader in a clear vacancy will be treated an appointment duly made. Prof. Kamal was ordered to function as Head of the Department of Political Science in a clear vacancy caused due to the expiry of the term of Dr. P.D. Sharma. When Prof. Kamal was appointed as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Respondent No. 3, being the next senior-most person in the Department, was appointed as Head. Use of the phrase 'or till further orders' in these orders is of no particular significance. In most of the orders of appointment of Head of the Departments, this phrase has been used. When Prof. Kamal was appointed, he was not the senior-most Professor in the Department. However, the senior most Professor, Shri H.G. Pant, was not in fact appointed. He did not acquire any right as Head of the Department nor did he acquire any lien or charge on the office of the Head of Department of Political Science. Thus, when order was passed in favour of Prof. Kamal, there was a clear vacancy and his appointment cannot beheld as one made during absence or leave of duly appointed Head of Department. In fact, at that time, no Head of the Department was absent or had gone on leave. 26. When Prof. Kamal left the scene, he left it for good. Office of a Member of Rajasthan Public Service Commission is a Constitutional Office and as per Article 316 (2), a Member of Public Service Commission shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains, the age of sixty two years, whichever is earlier. There are only two contingencies in which office of the Member of Public Service Commission is vacated. The first one is where the Member resigns his office by writing under his hand, addressed to the Governor of the State, if he is a Member of the State Commission and the second one is where a Member of Public Service Commission is removed from his office in the manner provided in Article 317(1) or in Article 317(3) of the Constitution. Article 317(1) in turn provides for removal by the President on the ground of misbehavior after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under Article 145, reported that the Chairman or such other Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed. Under Article 317(3), the President can remove a Member of the Public Service Commission if he is adjudged an insolvent or engages himself in any paid employment outside the duties of his office during the term of his office, or if the President is of the opinion that he has become unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body. Importance of the long tenure of six years of Member of Public Service Commission has to be considered in the light of the fact that this constitutional office is very vital for all the services in the country as well as in the State. A Member of the Public Service Commission is not entitled to seek employment after expiry of the tenure. Having regard to the importance of the office of the Member of Public Service Commission, the framers of the Constitution have fixed a long tenure of six years which a Member of the Public Service Commission is entitled to hold provided he does not attain the age of sixty-two years before the expiry of six years term. 27. Therefore, appointment of Dr. K.L. Kamal as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was to last to six years, in all probabilities. There is no material to show any situation as envisaged under Article 316(2) read with Article 317 of the Constitution was obtaining. Dr. Kamal had accepted the Membership of Commission consciously and it was clear in the minds of everyone, including the functionaries, that he will hold this office for six years. Therefore, mere fact that he had applied for 11 months leave is not of much significance or consequence. This he might have done for completing the period, which could enable him to earn full pension or retirement benefits of University Service. In any case, there was every likelihood of Dr. Kamal not returning at all to the University Service or at least the vacancy caused due to appointment of Dr. This he might have done for completing the period, which could enable him to earn full pension or retirement benefits of University Service. In any case, there was every likelihood of Dr. Kamal not returning at all to the University Service or at least the vacancy caused due to appointment of Dr. Kamal as Member, Public Service Commission was to last over a period of an year. 28. The word likely' means probable. Likely word is of general usage and common understanding, broadly defined as of such nature or so circumstantial as to make something probable and having better chance of existing or occurring (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, P. 925). Therefore, the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Head of the Department by order dated 22.9.88 was a regular appointment against a clear vacancy and he had been duly appointed as Head of the Department of Political Science while holding the post of Associate Professor. There was in fact no necessity of passing of the second order dated 21.9.89 but even then the language of the order dated 21.7.89 is plain and absolutely dear. It does not admit of any ambiguity. The order was passed in continuation of the earlier order dated 22.9.88 and the Vice Chancellor had consciously ordered that Respondent No. 3 will complete his term on 21.9.91. Thus, Respondent No. 3 completed his term of three years on 21.9.91. 29. Respondent No. 3 was himself conscious of the fact that his term was to continue up to 21.9.91. It is not possible to assume or to accept the argument that Respondent No. 3 was not aware of the consequences of the order dated 21.7.89. He never raised any protest or objection against the use of the phrase for a residual period of the term i.e. upto 21.9.91 or till further orders, whichever is earlier" in the order dated 21.7.89. It was only just twenty-one days before the termination of his tenures that Respondent No. 3 made a representation. In the face and unambiguous language of the order dated 21.7.89, there was no occasion or justification for convening a meeting of the Syndicate to consider the so-called lacuna in the Syndicate's Resolution dated 16.4.82, on the basis of the representation of Respondent No. 3. In the face and unambiguous language of the order dated 21.7.89, there was no occasion or justification for convening a meeting of the Syndicate to consider the so-called lacuna in the Syndicate's Resolution dated 16.4.82, on the basis of the representation of Respondent No. 3. However, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.9.91 had only appointed a committee to look into the matter and to submit its report within a week. The committee formulated two issues for its consideration and then made its recommendations to the Syndicate. The first issue was as to whether the period of Head of the Department, other than the duly appointed regular Head, be counted in the tenure of Headship as provided in para 400 of the guidelines dated 16.4.82. The committee resolved to recommend that the tenure of three years would be counted only from the date on which a person is duly appointed as regular Head of The Department. The term 'regular Head of the Department' is an addition made by the committee on its own. No such term finds mention in the earlier resolution of the Syndicate. Even then, it cannot be said that the committee had recommended any amendment or modification of the earlier guidelines. The recommendation of the committee can be read as clarifying, what was absolutely clear from the language of the Resolution dated 16.4.82. The recommendations of the committee ought to have been placed before the Syndicate and it should have been left to the Syndicate to consider those recommendations. However, for no reason these recommendations were not placed before the Syndicate and the Respondent No. 2 on his own passed order on 2.10.91 and the Registrar issued the office order dated 3.10.91. This action on the part of Respondent No. 2 was not proper but since the Syndicate has subsequently ratified the action of Respondent No. 2, no serious view deserves to be taken against Respondent No. 2 in passing the order dated 2.10.91 in favour of Respondent No. 3. Although the principles laid down by the Syndicate in para 5 of its Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82 do envisage extension of the term of Head-ship beyond three years but such extension is to be given only in the specified contingency. Although the principles laid down by the Syndicate in para 5 of its Resolution No. 6 dated 16.4.82 do envisage extension of the term of Head-ship beyond three years but such extension is to be given only in the specified contingency. In the present case, it is not even the case of Respondents that any decision has been taken for giving extension to the term of Headship of Respondent No. 3 in the contingencies envisaged by para 4. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the date 1.7.89 has absolutely no relevance and no explanation has been offered by Respondents as to how the Headship of Respondent No. 3 has been counted from 1.7.89. The learned counsel for Respondents tried to explain by arguing that 1st July has been chosen because Dr. Pant has retired on 30.6.89. This explanation, in my opinion, cannot be accepted as already held by me, reference to the case of Dr. Pant is wholly irrelevant because Dr. Pant has never been appointed as Head of the Department and, therefore, the question of Respondent No. 3 being appointed during the absence or vice Dr. Pant could never arise. 31. On the basis of the above discussion it must be held that Respondent No. 3 was duly appointed as Head of the Department by order dated 22.9.88 and in the face of the clear and unambiguous language of the order dated 21.9.89, there is no escape from the conclusion that Respondent No. 3 completed his term on 21.9.91. The action of Respondents No. 1 and 2 has resulted in a situation where Respondent No. 3 is continuing as Head of the Department even though the term fixed in the guidelines framed by the Syndicate vide its Resolution dated 16.4.82 has come to an end. In my opinion, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have clearly contravened the rules/guidelines laid down by the Syndicate. An arbitrary departure has been made from these guidelines without any legal justification. This has the direct result of denial of the right of consideration for appointment as Head of the Department of Political Science to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's right of equality has been violated by Respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of the passing of the order dated 3.10.91. 32. This has the direct result of denial of the right of consideration for appointment as Head of the Department of Political Science to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's right of equality has been violated by Respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of the passing of the order dated 3.10.91. 32. It is true that the decision taken by the bodies like University should not ordinarily be interfered by the Court and due respect should be given to these bodies out once it is found that a particular action taken by the University or any of its body is in clear violation of the constitutional provisions, the Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to remedy the grievance of an aggrieved person. As already observed, University is a public body and is required to discharge public functions. The University employs a large number of persons as Teachers and Officers and in other cadres. Actions of the University, as of any public authority, may affect its employees, students and other members of the public. Therefore, as and when the Court finds that the action of the University has resulted in breach of constitutional or other legal provisions, it is entitled to interfere and pass suitable order. In the present case, the Court has not been called upon to substitute its judgement in place of the judgement of the Respondents. It has merely been called upon to examine the constitutionality of the action of the Respondents in passing order dated 3.10.91 which has an adverse effect on the rights of the petitioner, which she has claimed on the basis of the guidelines/principles/norms framed by the University itself. The rule that the Court should be slow in interference with the decision of the educational bodies is only a rule of prudence. University organs, for that matter, any authority in our system is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. Respect of an authority is not to worship it. This Court will be failing in its duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individuals if it declines to interfere even after recording a finding that the action of the University or any of its body is in violation of the provisions of Constitution or the University Act or the Ordinances or the Statutes or Rules or Norms, fixed by the University itself. Since, I have found that the action of the Respondents suffers from arbitrariness and is contrary to the Norms/ Guidelines fixed by the University itself, and that there is a breach of the right of consideration of the petitioner for appointment as Head of the Department, I have no hesitation in striking down the impugned order. If the Court were to decline to quash this order on the spacious plea that the Court should not interfere with the decision of the academic bodies, it would result in extending the term of Headship of Respondent No. 3 beyond three years, a situation which was sought to be avoided by the Syndicate's Resolution of 16.4.82. The very concept of term of three years of Headship will be nullified if in the garb of explanation/clarification, a person is continued in the manner in which Respondent No. 3 has been allowed to continue after 21.9.91. 33. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 3.10.91 is hereby quashed. The Respondent University is directed to appoint Head of the Department of Political Science immediately as per the guidelines contained in the Syndicate's Resolution of 16.4.82 by considering the candidature of the petitioner according to her seniority. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******