Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short point it is not according (sic) to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner, Chandra Mani Prasad Sahi and 5th respondent, Dr. Ishwari Prasad Singh both are professors in L. M. College, Bhagalpur under respondent- B.R.A. Bihar University, while the petitioner is professor in economics, the 5th respondent is professor in Political Science, by impugned order dated 20.10.1990 issued by the respondent- Vice-Chancellor, the 5th respondent having declared senior to petitioner, the same is under challenge. 4. The fact, as pleaded and admitted, shows that the petitioner was appointed as temporary lecturer in the college on 10.7.1965 and he was regularised vide Governing Bodys meeting dated 16.9.1968. On the other hand, the 5th respondent so appointed as lecturer on 4.7.1968. Both the petitioner and 5th respondent have been promoted thereafter to the next higher rank of reader and professor in their respective faculties. Such promotion has been granted under time bound scheme. While the petitioner has been promoted as a reader w.e.f. 16.8.1985 vide order dated 27.5.1986, the 5th respondent has been promoted as a reader from earlier date w.e.f. 20.11.1984 yide order dated 14.12.1987. Subsequently petitioner has been promoted as a professor w.e.f. 16.8.1992 vide order dated 25.11.1997 whereas 5th respondent has been promoted as a professor in his faculty w.e.f. 5.7.1993 vide order dated 9.9.1997. 5. Admittedly both the petitioner and the 5th respondent being not in the same cadre, being member of two different faculties, the question of determination of seniority vis-a-vis them do not arise. Such seniority does not reflect in the matter of appointment to the post of Principal in College, which is to post meant to be filled up by direct recruitment. 6. It is only for the purpose of interim arrangement, in absence of regular principal, the seniormost person is given charge of the post, commonly known as professor incharge and for that a notional seniority is determined amongst the persons who are holding the post of professor though may be in different faculties. On the representation, of the 5th respondent, the seniority Committee declared the 5th respondent as senior to the petitioner. 7. On the representation, of the 5th respondent, the seniority Committee declared the 5th respondent as senior to the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the 5th respondent relied on Clause-9 of Article- 11 of Chapter-15 of the Statute to show that the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner as reader. Though such submission can be accepted in view of the fact that the 5th respondent was promoted as reader prior to the petitioner but same cannot be relied for the purpose of determination of seniority between two professors. It is the person who has been promoted as professor earlier cannot be declared to be junior to another person who has been promoted later no. There is no rule laid down declaring such earlier promotee professor as Junior to subsequent promotee and if such rule exists, can be doubted being violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner having promoted as professor from earlier date (w.e.f. 16.8.1992) he should have been declared as senior to 5th respondent as professor, who has been promoted from later date w.e.f. 5.7.1993. 9. As the question raised relating to seniority of two persons and the orders of promotion are not under challenge, i have not taken into consideration the legality and propriety, of any order of promotion issued in favour of one or other person. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the order dated 30.10.1998 and allow the writ petition.