Judgment :- Thulasidas, J. The judgment in O.P.No.14973 of 1994 is under challenge in this writ appeal. The appellant sought to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the first respondent, pursuant to the judgment of this court in W.A.No. 527 of 1994, which was filed against the judgment in O.P.No. 4361 of 1994 dt. 29-3-1994. The question that the Division Bench considered in the writ appeal was whether "Exts. P2 and P3 notifications issued by the second respondent University based upon the decision taken by the first respondent Government in regard to the status of the appellant as a member of the Senate without issuing notice to htm is sustainable in law", and observed that "since Ext. P2 notification was issued by the University on the basis of the decision taken by the first respondent admittedly without giving notice to the appellant, the first respondent be directed to take a fresh decision on the question whether the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Senate alter giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the matter". It was directed that "if the first respondent is still of the view that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Senate a show cause notice may be issued to the appellant indicating the grounds in support of such view giving the appellant one week's time to tile his representation, if any, in the mailer." Pursuant to the above direction, the Government issued Ext. P6 show cause notice where if was pointed out that since the appellant had joined the College of Engineering, Chengannur as Principal, he cannot be treated as a teaching staff of the University Department, and therefore has ceased to be a member of the Senate as also of the Syndicate, to which he has been nominated as a member. To that he sent a reply marked as Ext. P7, which was not accepted by the Government and ultimately the Government passed Ext. P5 order stating that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the University teaching staff by virtue of the provisions contained in S.20(4) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, for short the Act. The learned judge upheld Ext. P5 and dismissed the original petition. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 3. P5 order stating that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the University teaching staff by virtue of the provisions contained in S.20(4) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, for short the Act. The learned judge upheld Ext. P5 and dismissed the original petition. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 3. Admittedly the appellant is acting as Principal of the Engineering College, Chengannur on deputation. The provisions in R.143 of Chapter XI of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules are hence applicable. The question to decision is whether on such deputation from the University department he has ceased to be a member of the teaching staff of the university to entail loss of membership of the Senate and Syndicate. Section 19 of the Act provides for nomination to the Senate from members belonging to two separate Constituencies. Two members are elected from among the Principals of Engineering Colleges and two members from among the teaching staff of the University department. Section 20 of the Act deals with reconstitution of the Senate and under sub-section (2) any member of the Senate other than Ex-officio members shall hold office until its next reconstitution as per the provisions of the statute. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of S.20, "no member nominated or elected in the capacity as a member of particular body or as the holder of a particular office, shaft hold office for a longer period than three months alter he has ceased to be such member or holder of such office, unless in the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that body or holder of such office." 4. The moot question is whether on deputation to the College of Engineering, Chengannur, the appellant has ceased to be a member of the teaching staff of the University. Under sub-section (4) of Sec.20, "when a person ceases to be a member of the Senate he shall cease to be a member of any of the authorities of the University of which he is a member by virtue of his membership of the Senate." The appellant, had been elected to the Senate under (v) of S.19, He was not then holding a particular office and has not ceased to he a member of the teaching staff of the University on deputation. In other words, his membership of the teaching staff of the University has not ended or terminated, but remains suspended during the period of deputation. In our view, under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of S.20 of the Act he is entitled to continue as a member of the Senate and the Syndicate. 5. The substantive position of the appellant in the Engineering College is as Professor of Electronics. He has only been put in charge of office of the Principal of the College. Obviously he does not belong to the category of (i) of Section 19 of the Act and cannot claimed to be elected to the Senate from that category, but only under (v) of that section. 6. In our view, the learned judge has not correctly considered the relevant provisions and was wrong to have upheld Ext. P5, which, is unsustainable. That as also Exts. P2 and P3 are quashed as prayed for, The appeal is allowed. The appellant shall continue as member of the Senate and Syndicate till expiry of his term.