N. Pandey, J. By these appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court appellants Dr. Smt. Manoma Sinha and Magadh University through its Registrar have challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4781 of 1990. 2. In the aforesaid case writ petitioner Shobha Mandal (respondent no. 1 herein) had challenged the validity of the order, as contained in letter dated 17.7.1990 where-by the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University had declared Dr. Smt. Manorama Sinha senior to the writ petitioner as also the letter dated 4.4.1991 whereby the decision of the Chancellor was communicated, confirming the order of the Vice Chancellor. 3. As would appear from paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment in order to substantiate the grievance of the writ petitioner, different points were raised namely, (i) the question of seniority once finally settled cannot be reopened without giving notice to the petitioner ; (ii) the Vice Chancellor, has no power to review the earlier decision of the University regarding fixation of seniority vis-a-vis the petitioner and respondent no. 5 Manorama Sinha; (iii) the cadre of all constituent Collage of the Magadh University is not a combined cadre and a separate College wise cadre is in existence; (iv) a person loses seniority on being posted to another college on his/her request (v) whether a person transferred without a post is a deputation or nor and if it is a deputation there cannot be any question of seniority; (vi) whether respondent no. 5 Manorama Sinha would be deemed to be on deputation because Annexure 8 to the writ petition show that respondent no. 5 was working in the College in question not against any sanctioned post and (vii) whether respondent no. 5 having not challenged the seniority given to the petitioner Shobha Mandal by filing a representation before the Chancellor as contemplated under the law is now stopped from challenging the same on the principle of acquiscence. 4. 5 was working in the College in question not against any sanctioned post and (vii) whether respondent no. 5 having not challenged the seniority given to the petitioner Shobha Mandal by filing a representation before the Chancellor as contemplated under the law is now stopped from challenging the same on the principle of acquiscence. 4. The learned Judge having considered all the relevant materials brought on the record held that the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to review the previous decision of the University at communicated by the Registrar vide letter dated 27.9.1988 contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition, whereby the matter relating to seniority of these two teachers was finally settled It was further held that as per the settled norms once the dispute relating to seniority is finally settled between the parties, no order can be passed to change such seniority without issuing prior notice to the persons affected. As in the instant case, admittedly no notice was ever given by the Vice Chancellor to the writ petitioner before declaring Dr. Manorama Sinha senior, therefore while declaring the order of the Vice Chancellor and all others, consequential orders illegal in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, it was not necessary to decide other points raised by the parties whether the cadre of such teachers was being maintained separately or combined. 5. Before coming to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I must indicate that admittedly the writ petitioners joined the J.D. Women's College. Patna on 5.7.1977 against the post of lecturer in the Department of Botany. The said college was made constituent unit of the Magadh University in the year 1980, but with effect from 1978. It would appear from the letter of the Deputy Registrar, dated 7.2.1985 (contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition) that Smt. Shobha Mandal was permanently absorbed against the post of lecturer, Botany with effect from 5.7.1977. From various materials and the copy of the prospectus of the College undisputedly, it appears that the writ petitioner continued to discharge her duties as Head of the Department, Botany, with effect from 1978 itself. 6. So far as Dr. Smt. Manorama Sinha is concerned, she was initially appointment against the post of honorary lecturer in the Department of Botany. A.N. College Patna. 6. So far as Dr. Smt. Manorama Sinha is concerned, she was initially appointment against the post of honorary lecturer in the Department of Botany. A.N. College Patna. Later, with effect from 3.9.1975, she get appointment on temporary basis as lecturer in the Department of Botany, Jagjiwan College, Gaya. The said college was also made constituent unit of the University with effect from 1.7.1977. 7. It would appear from the pleadings of the parties that on the request of Dr. Smt. Manorma Sinha, the Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 30.11.1981, transferred her from Jagjiwan College, Gaya to J.D. Women’s College, Patna where she joined on 22.2.1981 It would further appear as Dr. Sinha had joined against unsanctioned post, the Deputy Registrar of the respondent University vide has letter no. 613/P/I dated 30.4.1987 requested her to give consent so that she could be adjusted to any other college where sanctioned post was available. But instead of giving any reply to the letter of the Deputy Registrar Dr. Smt. Manorma Sinha made a representation on 17.11.1987 before the Vice Chancellor to declare her senior to the writ petitioner. 8. Since a committee consisting of (i) The Vice Chancellor, (ii) The Pro-Vice Chancellor. (iii) Time member to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor. (iv) Two senior teachers to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, (v) one member to be nominated by the Finance Committee and (vi) the Registrar was already constituted as per the University Statutes, to consider the representation of the teachers of the constituent colleges regarding claim of seniority, the representation of Dr. Smt. Sinha was also placed before, the said Committee. It would appear from the letter of the Registrar of the University dated 27.3.1988 as also paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment that the Committee after considering the claim of dr. Smt. Sinha at its meeting dated 19.8.1988, was placed to order that the prayer of Dr. Smt. Sinha be rejected because her transfer from Jagjiwan college, Gaya to J.D. Women’s College Patna was made on her own request. 9. Mr. Chandrashekhar appearing to the appellant, contended that the learned Judge has erred in law while treating the decision of the seniority committee taken in its meeting dated 19.8.1988 and the communication of the Registrar dated 27.9.1988 as final. Because no order of the competent authority either rejecting or accepting the recommendation of the committee was ever recorded. 9. Mr. Chandrashekhar appearing to the appellant, contended that the learned Judge has erred in law while treating the decision of the seniority committee taken in its meeting dated 19.8.1988 and the communication of the Registrar dated 27.9.1988 as final. Because no order of the competent authority either rejecting or accepting the recommendation of the committee was ever recorded. The order of the registrar dated 27.9.1988 contended in Annexure 9 to the writ petition was illegal and without jurisdiction. Because as per section 79A of the Bihar State universities IIIrd Amendment Ordinance, 1986 in a case were syndicate and senate had case to exist the power of such bodies were to be discharge by the Vice Chancellor, so long senate or syndicate arc not constituted. Therefore, unless and until, the report of the committee was approved by the Vice Chancellor, no finality could be arrived, in that view of the matter, if the Vice Chancellor decided the seniority of Dr. Smt. Sinha by the impugned order, it cannot be said that he had reviewed the previous decision of the University. 10. In my view, there is no substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. It is true that as per section 79A of the Ordinance, which was brought into effect from 7.12.1986, in absence of the syndicate or senate, the Vice Chancellor had authority to discharge the function of such bodies. There as no doubt that the said provision was kept alive through the process of promulgation of the Ordinance still the enactment of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1990 (Act x3 of 1990) which came into force on 30.1.1990. But the legislature did not think proper to retain the said provision thereafter. The result was that in view of the amending Act, the Vice Chancellor ceased to have any power to discharge the functions of Senate and Syndicate save and except as was incorporated under section 75A of the Act, which provides; "If for any reason the Senate or the Syndicate or the Academic Council or any other Body of the University is not formed, he Chancellor may constitute a Committee or Committees to implement the provisions of he Act, till such time as the Bodies arc formed and such a Committee or Committees may exercise any powers and perform any duties of the concerned Body." 11. In the instant case, the impugned decision, contained in Annexure 1 declaring Dr. Smt. Sinha senior was taken by the Vice Chancellor on 17.7.1990 when Section 79A was no longer in existence. In teems of Section 75A, powers of Syndicate and Senate was to be exercised by a committee constituted by the Chancellor till such bodies are formed. No doubt, under section 10 (12) of the Act, some emergency power have been vested with the Vice Chancellor subject to the limitation prescribed there in. But in any view of tile matter, the impugned action of the Vice Chancellor will not come in the category of such powers. 12. While coming to the question relating to the transfer of Dr. Smt. Sinha Mr. Chandrashekhar contended that the Vice Chancellor was fully competent to transfer any teacher in exercise of its power at contemplated under subsection (14) of Section 10 of the Act on the basis of the guidelines issued by the University vide notification no, 209/GS (C) dated 22.7.1982 Therefore, even Dr. Smt. Sinha was transferred on her request from Jgjiwan College to J.D. Women's College, Patna, she would maintain her seniority. The seniority committee has worngly decided that Dr Smt. Sinha was not entitled to claim seniority since she was transferred .n her request. 13. There is no dispute that as per the provisions of Section 10 (14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the Vice Chancellor will have jurisdiction to transfer a teacher from one constituent college to another constituent college on the basil of the guidelines issued by the Chancellor, nor there is any dispute that a guideline in this regard was notified on 22.7.1982 from which it would appear that transfer of such teachers can be made at any time (a) on academic grounds, (b) compassionate grounds and (c) on administrative grounds. It further indicates that no transfer or a permanent teacher shall be allowed against a temporary post and vice versa, nor any question of transfer can be taken up against unsanctioned post. This is not in dispute that transfer of Dr. Smt. Sinha to this college was made on her own request, therefore, it would fall in category (b) No provision was brought to our notice to show that even on such transfer teachers would retain their original seniority. This is not in dispute that transfer of Dr. Smt. Sinha to this college was made on her own request, therefore, it would fall in category (b) No provision was brought to our notice to show that even on such transfer teachers would retain their original seniority. Because in absence of any such provision, as per the general rule and practice such teacher cannot retain his or her seniority. 15. That apart, Dr Jha, appearing for the writ petitioner, pointed out that as would appear from the letter of the Registrar, dated 11.1.1986 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) that the Syndicate or the University had already taken a decision on 27.9.1985 that the question of determination of seniority of such transferred teacher would remain pending until a joint gradation list is finlised. It further indicates that henceforth, teachers applying for transfer from one college to other or from one department to other as the case may be will have to give an undertaking that they would not claim their seniority. Admittedly till this day, no Joint Gradation List of the teachers has been finalised nor there is anything to show that the aforesaid decision of the Syndicate was later altered or recalled. Therefore, on this around also, the decision of the Vice Chancellor declaring Dr Smt. Sinha senior was quite illegal and without jurisdiction. 16. It would be relevant to notice that neither Mr. Chandrashekhar, appearing for Dr. Smt. Sinha nor the learned counsel, who appeared for the Magadh University could challenge the validity of the decision of the Syndicate. Thus on this ground also the submission of Mr. Jha appears justified. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no other option but to agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that until and unless a Joint Gradation List was published it was not open to the respondent authorities to alter the seniority of the writ petitioner. 17. While turning to the submission made by Mr. Chandrashekha, that letter of the Registrar dated 21.4.1988 (contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition) was not the decision of the competent authority rather it was his exclusive decision. Mr. Jha contended that a hare reference to the said letter would indicate that it was issued on the direction of the competent authority. 18. Chandrashekha, that letter of the Registrar dated 21.4.1988 (contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition) was not the decision of the competent authority rather it was his exclusive decision. Mr. Jha contended that a hare reference to the said letter would indicate that it was issued on the direction of the competent authority. 18. Unfortunately none of the parties including learned counsel for the respondent University could bring any material before us to show whether such a decision was taken by the University or it was done exclusively at the level of the Registrar. But from the contents of the letter this much is clear that the seniority committee of which Vice Chancellor. Pro-Vice Chancellor and other representatives were members, bad in the meeting dated 19.8.1988 rejected the claim of Dr. Smt. Sinha on the ground that she had joined J.D. Women's College on her request. 19. That apart the learned Judge has also noticed that Dr. Smt. Sinha joined this college on 22.12.1981 at a time when the writ petition was already working as the Head of the Department of Botany. He also noticed the copy of the prospectus contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition to show that Dr. Smt. Sinha was placed at serial no. 3 of the teachers of the Department of Botany where as the writ petitioner at serial no. 1. But for the first time, on 17.11.1987 i.e. about six years of joining, Dr. Smt. Sinha made a representation before the Vice Chancellor. 20. For the reasons stated above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, particularly when the Syndicate had already taken a decision on 27.9.1985 that the claim for seniority of transferred teachers will remain pending until the Joint Gradation List was finalised. Subject to such en observation, both the appeals an dismissed, but without any order as to costs.