JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated January 29, 2000 (Annexure-8) and Feb. 9, 2000 (Annexure-9) whereby the respondent No.2 Dr. Satish Agarwal was appointed as Dean Faculty of Management Studies and the petitioner was ordered not to function as Director, School of Business. The petitioner also seeks directions to reinstate him on the post of Dean, Faculty of Management Studies as well as on the post of Director of the said faculty. 2. According to the facts averred in the writ petition the petitioner passed M.Com. Examination in the year 1966, he stood first in the entire University and was awarded Gold Medal. Thereafter degree of Ph.D. was conferred on him. Initially the petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer in Rajasthan Education Service on July 7, 1966 and afterwards selected on the post of Reader in Faculty of Commerce Management in Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel University Gujarat on August 1, 1977. On June 15, 1979 he was selected and appointed on the post of Professor in Saurashtra University. While the petitioner was working as professor, he was deputed by the University Grant Commission to Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer on June 1, 1995. During that period he was selected on the post of Professor vide order dated December 6, 1995. On December 6, 1996 he was confirmed on the said post. While the petitioner was working as Professor he was also appointed as Director Faculty of Management Studies vide order dated December 21, 1995. In accordance with the provisions contained in the a University of Ajmer Act 1987 (in short 1987 Act) the petitioner was appointed as Dear for Faculty of Management Studies. Although in the order the petitioner was appointed for period of two years but the said period was extended for further two years vide order dated December 27, 1997. On October 29, 1993 a decision was taken for appointment of Director of each School of Studies for a period of three years. On June 25, 1991 a meeting of Academic Council was held for the purpose of post of Dean and a decision was taken which was incorporated in item No.10, which reads thus "10. On October 29, 1993 a decision was taken for appointment of Director of each School of Studies for a period of three years. On June 25, 1991 a meeting of Academic Council was held for the purpose of post of Dean and a decision was taken which was incorporated in item No.10, which reads thus "10. The Item No.10 of the Agenda was considered and it was resolved to appoint Deans on the basis of seniority amongst the following : (i) (a) Seniority amongst Professors of the University OR (b) Seniority amongst P.G. Principals of affiliated Colleges. (ii) Seniority amongst, the Readers, where there is no Professor in the Faculty. It was further RESOLVED that the Deans be appointed by rotation. As soon as the faculties would be established the rotation system will come into force." 3. According to the petitioner there is no other Professor except the petitioner in the entire Faculty of Management Studies. The respondent No.2 is merely an Associate Professor with total 10 years teaching experience, whereas the petitioner has experience of 34 years teaching out of which 21 years is as professor. The impugned order dated January 29, 2000 and Feb. 9, 2000, according to the petitioner, are contrary to law and facts on record. The petitioner is the .only Professor in the Faculty of Management Studies and he cannot be compelled to work under the Associate Professor. The appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dean is illegal and contrary to 1987 Act. The petitioner submitted representations to the Vice Chancellor on February 23, 2000 and to the Chancellor on March 3, 2000 but no heed was paid to the request made by the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has o prayed to quash the impugned orders and sought directions to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Dean, Faculty of Management Studies as well as on the post of Director, Faculty of Management Studies. 4. It was stated in the reply by respondent No.1 (for short the University) that the petitioner's term as Dean Faculty of Management Studies came to an end on December 24, 1999 and respondent No.2 thereafter was appointed as Dean on Jan. 1, 2000. As the writ petition discloses no cause of action it is not maintainable. 4. It was stated in the reply by respondent No.1 (for short the University) that the petitioner's term as Dean Faculty of Management Studies came to an end on December 24, 1999 and respondent No.2 thereafter was appointed as Dean on Jan. 1, 2000. As the writ petition discloses no cause of action it is not maintainable. It was, further pleaded that resolution dated June 25, 1991 is directory in nature and can not be said to be law governing the University. It was also stated that as per established practice of the University the Dean of Faculty is appointed for a period of two years. Out of 67 Deans appointed in the University, only two continued for a period of five years in peculiar circumstances. It was however admitted that the petitioner is the only Professor in the Faculty of Management Studies, while the respondent No.2 is the senior most Associate Professor. It was further averred that the petitioner who had represented the faculty for 4 long years should have exercised restrain as by appointment of respondent No.2 as Dean, the petitioner was not deprived of any of his legal right. 5. Respondent No.2 did not file any reply but during the course of arguments adopted the reply filed by the University. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Sub clause 2 of Schedule appended to 1987 Act provides that there has to be a Dean of Colleges, a Dean of Postgraduate Studies and a Dean for each faculty, appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Academic Council subject to the approval of the Board. According to section 12 of the 1987 Act, the Academic Council is the incharge of the academic affairs of the University constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. "Statute" has been defined under Section 2(p) of the 1987 Act 'as Statutes of the University made under this Act,'. As per section 21 of the 1987 Act, the Statutes of the University contain such instruction, directions, procedure, details and terms and conditions as are required to be laid down under and in accordance with the provisions of 1987 Act. "Statute" has been defined under Section 2(p) of the 1987 Act 'as Statutes of the University made under this Act,'. As per section 21 of the 1987 Act, the Statutes of the University contain such instruction, directions, procedure, details and terms and conditions as are required to be laid down under and in accordance with the provisions of 1987 Act. The Statutes as contained in the Schedule to the 1987 Act and as amended from time to time is binding on all authorities, officers, teachers, employees and students of the University and other persons connected with the affairs of the University. 8. The petitioner appended minutes of the meeting of Academic Council field on June 25, 1991. As stated hereinabove as per Item No.10, a decision was taken to appoint Deans on the basis of seniority. A look at the said decision demonstrates that seniority amongst Professors of the University had to be looked into and where there was no Professor in the Faculty, seniority amongst the Readers had to be seen and Deans head to be appointed by rotation. Admittedly the petitioner is the only Professor in the entire Faculty of Management Studies and the respondent No.2 Dr. Satish Agarwal is merely an Associate Professor. Therefore as per item No.10 of the decision, the respondent No.2 could not have been considered for appointment as Dean. A look at the order dated Jan. 29, 2000 (Annexure-8) goes to show that the said order purported to have been passed in pursuance to item No.10 of the decision, but in fact it was not passed. The appointment of Dr. Satish Agarwal (respondent No. 2) was not made on the recommendation of the Academic council as required by Clause 2 of the Schedule appended to 1987 Act. 9. Professor and Associate Professor are not alike. They belong to different categories, therefore question of rotation does not arise between them.In Professor Sushi J. Lalwani v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.28/1998 decided on Feb. 25, 1999 , it was indicated that : "In case there is a Professor in the Department, a Reader can not be appointed as Dean and there is no question of rotation of Deanship amongst Professors and Readers as they definitely belong to different categories." 10. 25, 1999 , it was indicated that : "In case there is a Professor in the Department, a Reader can not be appointed as Dean and there is no question of rotation of Deanship amongst Professors and Readers as they definitely belong to different categories." 10. The entire scheme of 1987 Act does not contemplate a situation where a Professor can be asked to work under an Associate Professor. Clause 2 of Schedule of the 1987 Act neither provides rotation nor laid down any fixed term for the Deans. Even item No.10 of the decision does not permit appointment of an Associate Professor as Dean of the Faculty when there is Professor in the Faculty. When there is only one Professor in the Faculty question of rotation does not arise at all. The petitioner who is having 34 years of teaching experience as Professor cannot be asked to work under respondent No.2 who is only an Associate Professor with total 10 years of teaching experience. The University has to follow the provision contained in the 1987 Act only. Prevailing established practice cannot override the statutory provisions. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents that the decision taken in the meeting of Academic Council was only directory in nature. To my mind the said decision was mandatory in character. As said before a Dean can only be appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendations of the Academic Council in view of Clause 2 of Schedule. The Academic Council in Item No.10 of the decision framed guide lines for making appointment on the post of the Dean and the said guide lines had to be followed in letter and spirit while making such appointment. But while passing the order dated Jan. 29, 2000, the Vice Chancellor did not care to look at Clause 2 of Schedule appended to the 1987 Act and thus committed illegality. In so far as the order dated Feb. 9, 2000 is concerned it is against the principles of natural justice being passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore in my considered opinion the impugned orders Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 are arbitrary in nature and they deserve to be struck down. 11. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The orders dated Jan. 29, 2000 (Annexure-8) and Feb. 9, 2000 is concerned it is against the principles of natural justice being passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore in my considered opinion the impugned orders Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 are arbitrary in nature and they deserve to be struck down. 11. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The orders dated Jan. 29, 2000 (Annexure-8) and Feb. 9, 2000 (Annexure-9) are set aside and the respondent University is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Dean in Faculty of Management Studies as well as on the post of Director of the said Faculty in accordance with sub-clause 2 of Schedule of 1987 Act and Item No.10 of the decision taken in the meeting of the Academic Council dated June 25, 1991. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Order set aside - University Directed to consider petitioner's case. *******