JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash order dated July 26, 2001 of the University of Rajasthan whereby Shri D.H.L. Meena (respondent No.2) was appointed Convener, Board of Studies (Political Science) with a further prayer to allow the petitioner to continue as Convener, Board of Studies (Political Science) without any disturbance. 2. As per the facts averred in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Convener Board of Studies (Political Science) vide orders dated January 15, 2001 and February 12, 2001 but the said orders were set aside by the University of Rajasthan on July 26, 2001 and Shri D.H.L. Meena, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Convener Board of Studies in Political Science. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the definition of 'Principal' provided under section 2(a) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (in short 1946 Act) has been mis-read by the respondent University and appointment of respondent No.2 under sub-section (8) of section 24 E of 1946 Act was illegal. The petitioner annexed with the writ petition order dated March 18, 2000 (Annexure-6) and March 23, 2000 (Annexure-7) to show that the respondent No.2 Shri D.H.L. Meena was not duly appointed as Principal, PG College, therefore he could not have been appointed Convener of the Board of Studies (Political Science). 4. Mr. P.S. Asopa, learned Senior Advocate during the course of arguments invited my attention to the definition of word 'appointment' as provided in Rule 2(a) of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (in short 1986 Rules). It is further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was promoted as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme vide order dated November 21, 2001 and in meeting of Board of Studies (Political Science) dated January 15, 2001, the petitioner was appointed as Convener, Board of Studies (Political Science) under section 24E(8) therefore the respondent University is duty bound to implement the decision of the Board of Studies. 5. Per contra Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated the averments pleaded in the return to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent University and canvassed that Shri D.H.L. Meena being the Principal of affiliated P.G. College was rightly appointed as Convener Board of Studies. 5. Per contra Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated the averments pleaded in the return to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent University and canvassed that Shri D.H.L. Meena being the Principal of affiliated P.G. College was rightly appointed as Convener Board of Studies. Neither condition of service of the petitioner has been infringed nor has valuable right been taken away from the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent No.2 in absence of any person in the category of (i) University Professors was the next eligible person in order of preference under category (ii) as Principal of Post Graduate College as opposed to the petitioner who fell in the category (iii) of section 24 E (8) of the 1946 Act. Under Section 13 (2) of 1946 Act, the Vice Chancellor is duty bound to see that the Act and the Statutes and the Ordinances are faithfully observed. The Vice Chancellor in exercise of powers under Section 13 (2) of 1946 Act, in consonance with the provisions of section 24 E (8) read with Statute 96 A, appointed the respondent No.2 as Convenor Board of Studies and cancelled the earlier order dated January 15, 2001, as the appointment of the petitioner as Convener was void, ab initio. 6. Before proceeding further it will be useful to refer the relevant statutory provisions of the 1946 Act. Section 2(a) of the 1946 Act reads as under: "(a) "Principal" means the head of an affiliated college or any person duly appointed to act as such;" Section 9 of the 1946 Act reads thus : "9. 6. Before proceeding further it will be useful to refer the relevant statutory provisions of the 1946 Act. Section 2(a) of the 1946 Act reads as under: "(a) "Principal" means the head of an affiliated college or any person duly appointed to act as such;" Section 9 of the 1946 Act reads thus : "9. The following shall be the officers of the University (i) The Chancellor, (ii) The Vice Chancellor, (ii-a) The Pro Vice Chancellor, (iii) The Registrar, (iv) The Deans of Faculties, (v) The University Librarian, and (vi) Such other persons in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be the officers of the University." Section 13(2) of the 1946 Act which deals with the powers and duty of the Vice Chancellor, reads thus (2) It shall be the duty of the Vice Chancellor to see that this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances are faithfully observed, and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose." Section 24 E(8) of 1946 Act which deals with the Convenor of the Board, read thus "(8) Each Board shall have a Convener appointed by itself in the following order of preference from among its internal members, namely : (i) University Professors; (ii) Principals of post-graduate colleges being heads of departments or Principals of degree colleges who have held the office of the Principal of a post graduate college and head of a department for at least five years; (iii) University Readers in subjects in which there is no University Professor; (iv) Principals of degree college being heads of departments; (v) Head of post graduate departments in colleges; and (vi) Heads of degree departments in colleges." 7. A look at the aforequoted statutory provisions would go to show that the order of preference to appoint a Convener of the Board of Studies has been prescribed in sub-section (8) of Section 24 E of 1946 Act whereas according to section 13(2) of 1946 Act the Vice Chancellor has a duty to see that' the Act, Statutes and the Ordinances are faithfully observed and he shall have all necessary powers for this purpose. In my opinion the powers vested in the Vice Chancellor ought to have been exercised in a fair manner and the Vice Chancellor should abide by the principles of natural justice. 8. In my opinion the powers vested in the Vice Chancellor ought to have been exercised in a fair manner and the Vice Chancellor should abide by the principles of natural justice. 8. Comings to the facts of the instant case, it appears that the Board of Studies of Political Sciences held its meeting on Feb. 27, 2001 and took decision to appoint the petitioner for a period of three years as Convener of the Board of Studies in Political Sciences. In the said meeting as many as 7 members including the respondent Shri D.H.L. Meena were present. The Vice Chancellor under section 13(2) of 1946 Act passed the impugned order dated July 26, 2001 whereby Shri D.H.L. Meena was appointed Convener of the Board of Studies for Political Sciences and it was directed that the earlier office order issued in this regard stands cancelled and withdrawn with effect from July 26, 2001. To my mind the Vice Chancellor undoubtedly had powers to cancel/withdraw the decision taken on Feb. 27, 2001 in the meeting of Board of Studies in regard to appointment of the petitioner as Convener Board of Studies for Political Science but he ought to have assigned reasons for the same. Without assigning the reasons and without providing opportunity to the petitioner for showing cause the decision taken in the meeting dated Feb. 27, 2001 could not have been withdrawn/cancelled, therefore the impugned order dated July 26, 2001 in my opinion is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 9. For the reasons aforementioned I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated July 26, 2001 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and Shri D.H.L. Meena. I direct the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan to pass a fresh order under section 13(2) and in view of section 24E (8) of 1946 Act after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Shri D.H.L. Meena. Before passing the said order and Vice Chancellor shall take into consideration the subsequent events occurred after passing of the impugned 8rder dated July 26, 2001. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******