JUDGMENT : L. Mohapaara, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to treat him senior to opposite party No. 3 and quash Annexure-10, i.e. Office Order No. 6380 dated 22-5-2000 appointing opposite party No. 3 as Head of the Department of Business Administration. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Post - Graduate, Department of Commerce,Berhampur University in the year 1990, the Petitioner had applied and having been selected, was appointed against the said post on 21-9-90. In the year 1994, two posts of Readers were advertised to be filled up with specialization in M.B.A. On 21-9-95 the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer. Again in 1996 one post of Reader was advertised to be filled up against a lien vacancy. On 16-4-98 interview for the post of Reader was held and on 4-2-99 appointment letters were issued against the post of Reader in favor of the Petitioner as well as opposite party No.3. On 4-2-99 also the lien vacancy was converted to a substantive post by the Syndicate vide its resolution No. 46. After being selected the Petitioner joined the post of Reader on 4-2-99, whereas the opposite party No. 9 joined the post on 9-2-99. On 22-5-2000 opposite party No. 3 was appointed as the Head of the Department of Business Administration, Berhampur University, ignoring the seniority of the Petitioner which is under challenge. 3. The learned senior counsel Shri Jagannath Patnaik appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has challenged the appointment of opposite party No. 3 on the following grounds: (a) The Syndicate has no power to either fix seniority or lay down guidelines for fixation of seniority. (b) Till today no notification has been issued by the University with regard to inter se seniority between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3. (c) In view of the statement made by opposite party No. 1 in its counter, the marks awarded to opposite party No. 3 towards teaching experience may not be correct. (d) In absence of any rule with regard to fixation of inter se seniority, the date of joining is the criterion and accordingly the Petitioner having joined the post of Reader before opposite party No. 3, he is to be treated as senior to opposite party No. 3. (d) In absence of any rule with regard to fixation of inter se seniority, the date of joining is the criterion and accordingly the Petitioner having joined the post of Reader before opposite party No. 3, he is to be treated as senior to opposite party No. 3. 4. In the counter filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 it is stated that in the year 1994, two regular posts of Readers in M.B.A. fell vacant under the University for which advertisement was issued on 26-10-94 inviting applications for the said posts of Reader in M.B.A. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and one Dr. A.K. Sahu were appointed as Readers in M.B.A. on 4-2-99. In the year 1996 a lien vacancy was available against the post of Reader in M.B.A. arid an advertisement was issued to fill up the said post. The Petitioner who could not get an appointment pursuant to the 1994 advertisement again applied against the lien vacancy. He stood first in the interview and was selected for the post. Since appointment letters in respect t of the three posts were issued on 4-2-99 the Syndicate resolved that the inter se seniority between the Petitioner opposite party No. 3 and Dr. A.K. Sahu should be fixed on the basis of marks secured by them in the interview/selection. It is stated in the counter that in the interview with regard to 1994 advertisement opposite party No. 3 had secured highest marks, whereas the Petitioner had secured less marks than opposite party No. 3 and therefore, opposite party No. 3 was treated as senior to the Petitioner and accordingly he was appointed as the Head of the Department in Business Administration. 5. Opposite party No. 3 has filed a counter repeating what has been stated by opposite parties 1 and 2 and he has further stated in the counter that the Petitioner having been selected against a lien vacancy cannot claim seniority above opposite party No. 3. Learned Counsel Shri J.K. Rath appearing for opposite patty No. 3, further submitted that in the interview held for the post of Reader against the advertisement of 1994 the Petitioner had also applied and in the said selection. Opposite party No. 3 stood first, whereas the Petitioner stood fourth. Learned Counsel Shri J.K. Rath appearing for opposite patty No. 3, further submitted that in the interview held for the post of Reader against the advertisement of 1994 the Petitioner had also applied and in the said selection. Opposite party No. 3 stood first, whereas the Petitioner stood fourth. The Selection Committee had the occasion to judge the comparative merits of the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3, the latter was considered to be more meritorious than that of the Petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in treating the opposite party No. 3 senior to the Petitioner appointing him as the Head of the Department. 6. Shri Jagannath Patnaik, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that Section 24 of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') prescribes that subject to the provisions of the Act, the statute shall provide for several matters including the manner of recruitment of officers and their conditions of service, as prescribed u/s (24) (1)(i) He has further referred to Section 10(3) of the Act and submits that the Syndicate has no authority to fix seniority or lay down guidelines for fixation of seniority, as u/s 24 (1)(i) the Statute is required to make provision with regard to recruitment of officers and conditions of their service. On the basis of the above submission, Shri Patnaik contends that the guidelines laid down by the Syndicate in the meeting held on 4-2-99 under Annexure-9 stating that the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 is to be fixed on the basis of marks obtained, is based on no authority and the law does not empower the Syndicate to lay down such a guideline for fixation of inter se seniority. It is further contended that accepting for the sake of argument that the Syndicate has the power to Jay down guidelines or fix the inter se seniority, the decision of the Syndicate under Annexure-9 clearly indicates that notification shall be issued as per the seniority position on the basis of marks obtained by the respective parties and till today no notification has been issued fixing inter se seniority between Petitioner and opposite party No. 3. Therefore, in absence of notification to that effect, opposite party No. 3 could not have been treated as senior to the Petitioner, He further submitted that in absence of any rule or provision in the Statute with regard to fixation of inter se seniority, the date of joining is the criterion for fixation of seniority and the Petitioner having joined the post of Reader prior to opposite party No. 3., he should have been treated as senior to opposite party No. 3. Shri Patnaik relied on a decision reported in Bhey Ram Sharma and others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 7. The first question that is to be decided is as to whether the Syndicate has the power to fix inter se seniority or lay down guidelines with regard to fixation of seniority. Though Section 24 of the Act provides that the Statute shall provide the manner of recruitment of officers and conditions of their service, there is no such provision in the Statute.In obscene of any provision in the Statute, it is to be examined as to whether the Syndicate has the power to lay down guideline for fixation of seniority. Section 10(3)(p) empowers the Syndicate to exercise powers of the University which are not otherwise provided for. In absence of any provision in the Statute for fixation of inter se seniority, the Syndicate can exercise the powers of the University, as provided under Section- l0(3)(p) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Syndicate had no power to either fix seniority or lay down guidelines for fixation of seniority. 8. Coming to the second question raised by Shri Patnaik that even accepting the powers of the Syndicate to the extent that it can lay down guidelines for fixation of seniority, no notification has been issued with regard to fixation of inter se seniority between Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate dated 4-2-99 and therefore, in absence of such notification, opposite party No. 3 could not have been treated as senior to the Petitioner. From the records it is found that the Petitioner joined as Lecturer in the year 1990 in the P.G. Department of Commerce in Berhampur University. For appointment to the post of Reader teaching experience of minimum five years is required and there is no dispute about the same. From the records it is found that the Petitioner joined as Lecturer in the year 1990 in the P.G. Department of Commerce in Berhampur University. For appointment to the post of Reader teaching experience of minimum five years is required and there is no dispute about the same. Therefore, the Petitioner had the requisite teaching experience only in 1995 and therefore, was not eligible to apply for the post of Reader when the advertisement for the first two posts of Readers was published in the year 1994. However, since the interview for the post of Reader as advertised in 1994 was conducted in the year 1999, the Petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview. It is contended by Shri Rath appearing for opposite party No. 3 that the Petitioner was not eligible to apply against the 1994 advertisement as he had not the requisite experience as a Lecturer and, therefore, could not have been considered for selection. But the Petitioner was considered along with opposite party No. 3, Dr. A.K. Sahu and others. However, the Petitioner was eligible to apply against the lien vacancy that was advertised to be filled up in the year 1996. In the interview for the post advertised in the year 1994 the Selection Committee had the occasion to judge the comparative merits of the candidates appearing in the interview which included not only the Petitioner but also opposite party No. 3 and the Selection Committee found the opposite party No. 3 more meritorious than that of the Petitioner, as a result of which opposite party No. 3 was placed at the first position and the Petitioner was placed at the fourth position. Against the lien vacancy advertised in 1996 the opposite party No. 3 had not applied and few candidates applied for the post in which the Petitioner was placed at first position. But the fact remains that one Selection Committee conducted the interview for the posts advertised in 1994 as well as for the post advertised in 1996. Therefore, the contention of Shri Patnaik that there were two different Selection Committees for the different advertisements and there cannot be a comparison with regard to marks, has no basis. From the records it appears that the same Selection Committee considered the case of the Petitioner against the 1994 vacancy as well as against the 1996 lien vacancy. Therefore, the contention of Shri Patnaik that there were two different Selection Committees for the different advertisements and there cannot be a comparison with regard to marks, has no basis. From the records it appears that the same Selection Committee considered the case of the Petitioner against the 1994 vacancy as well as against the 1996 lien vacancy. In the instant case the notification with regard to fixation of seniority is only a technical question and if the records are clear to show that the opposite party No. 3 had obtained more marks than that of the Petitioner, the decision of opposite parties 1 and 2 to treat opposite party No. 3 senior to the Petitioner and appoint him as the Head of the Department cannot be struck down only on that ground. 9. So far as awarding of marks in the selection in terms of teaching experience is concerned, the admitted position is that the Petitioner joined as a Lecturer in 1990 and was eligible to apply for the post of Reader in 1995. Interview for the appointment to the post of Reader was conducted in April, 1998 and therefore, the Petitioner had completed seven years of experience on the date of interview and therefore, he has been awarded the correct marks as it appears from the records produced by the learned Counsel for the University. So far as opposite party No. 3 is concerned, there is some dispute with regard to his date of appointment as a Lecturer. Though in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 3 it is stated that he joined as a Lecturer on 6-12-85 in the application for appointment to the post of Reader he has stated that he had teaching experience in Post Graduate level from 1982 to 1985 and Honors class from January, 1988 onwards. let appears that the University has awarded marks taking into consideration his teaching experience from 1988. Even accepting the stand of the University that the teaching experience of opposite party No. 3 has been taken into consideration with effect from January, 1988, in any event opposite party No. 3 had more teaching experience than that of the Petitioner and has been awarded higher marks than that of the Petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Selection Committee in awarding higher marks to opposite party No. 3 so far as teaching experience is concerned. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Selection Committee in awarding higher marks to opposite party No. 3 so far as teaching experience is concerned. 10. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in absence of any rule, the date of joining should be taken to be the criterion for fixation of seniority, reliance has been placed on the decision reported in Bhey Ram Sharma and others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others. The Apex Court in the decision held that while determining the inter se seniority amongst officers recruited from different sources or between officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date of entering into service is relevant. In my view, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case, as though the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were appointed by the same process but at one time and not at different times. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Shri B.S. Misra appearing for the University has relied upon the decision reported in Surendra Narain Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and submits that the seniority is to be determined on the basis of the position declared in the merit list. In the said case the controversy with regard to fixation of seniority was in relation to appointment of Munsifs. The apex Court observed that the merit list of the selected candidates by the Bihar Public Service Commission should be adhered to with regard to fixation of seniority. 11. Having held that the Syndicate had the power to fix the inter se seniority or lay down guidelines for fixation of inter se seniority, in absence of any provision in the Statute and having held that opposite party No. 3 was found more meritorious than that of the Petitioner in the interview. I have no hesitation to hold that opposite party No. 3 has been rightly considered as senior to the Petitioner and the date of joining in the post of Reader is of no consequence, since appointment letters were issued on one day and the Petitioner who was working in Berhampur had the occasion to join immediately. 12. I have no hesitation to hold that opposite party No. 3 has been rightly considered as senior to the Petitioner and the date of joining in the post of Reader is of no consequence, since appointment letters were issued on one day and the Petitioner who was working in Berhampur had the occasion to join immediately. 12. Only because the Petitioner joined earlier than that of opposite party No. 3, he cannot be declared senior to opposite party No. 3 ignoring the fact that opposite party No. 3 was found more meritorious than that of the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 had been placed in the first position in the interview. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed