( 1 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor in the Nizam s Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the Institute ) in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as Associated Professor in 1989 and as Professor in the year 1992. He was declared the Head, Department of Cardiology in the Institute in 1993. Ever since then, he has been holding that post. Through orders dated 20-5-2002, the Director of Institute, nominated the 2nd respondent in the place of the petitioner as Head of the Department on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Director has no competence to pass the impugned order and even other wise as long as he continues to hold the post, in that, he is neither removed nor suspended by a competent authority, the question of nominating the 2nd respondent in his place does not arise. ( 3 ) THE Institute filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by them that the Director is conferred with the power to nominate the Head of the Department and, as such, has the power to pass the impugned order. It is also their contention that the post of Head of the Department does not carry any additional emoluments and the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered monitory loss nor is he entitled to hold the post as of right. It is further stated that certain irregularities were noticed in the Department of Cardiology and a Committee was appointed to look into it and the same has submitted a report. It is alleged that, according to the report submitted by the Committee, the petitioner is held responsible for the irregularities and, as such, pending further action, the impugned order was passed to ensure that the records are not tampered with. ( 4 ) SRI N. Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the senior most Professor in any Department of the Institute is entitled to be nominated and declared as Head of the Department and the post carries with it the right to be part of Academic Council of the Institute, apart from connoting the achievement of the person holding the post. He submits that as long as the petitioner continues to be the senior most Professor, he is entitled to continue as Head of the Department. So far as the disciplinary powers are concerned, they are vested only with the Executive Board of the Institute and the Director of the Institute has absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He also states that the impugned order, even if to be treated as the one implementing the orders of the Executive Board, it does not conform to the resolutions referred to therein and goes far beyond what the resolutions in fact contemplated. ( 5 ) SRI E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. G. K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Institute, submits that the impugned order was passed only as a precautionary measure and it cannot be said to have caused any prejudice or resulted in punishment to the petitioner. According to him, the Director, being the authority vested with the power to declare Head of the Department, was competent to pass the impugned order. He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings are in progress and the impugned order cannot be found fault with. ( 6 ) NIZAM s Orthopaedic Hospital was one of the Government Hospitals even during the Nizam s Rule and three centuries after the independence. In the year 1983, the hospital was converted into the Institute of Medical Sciences, by forming a Society under the provisions of A. P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Thereafter, in the year 1989, the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature established the Nizam s Institute of Medical Sciences and conferred the Status of a University, through the Nizam s Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1939 (Act 13 of 1989) (for short the Act ). The affairs of the Institute are to be looked after and managed by the authorities constituted under Section 6 of the Act viz. , the Governing Council, the Executive Board, the Academic Council; and the Finance Committee; and Officers as provided under Section 7 of the Act viz. , the President, the Vice President, the Director, the Dean, the Executive Registrar and such other persons as may be prescribed to be the officers of the Institute. ( 7 ) THE power to make regulations is conferred upon the Governing Council under Section 40 of the Act. , the President, the Vice President, the Director, the Dean, the Executive Registrar and such other persons as may be prescribed to be the officers of the Institute. ( 7 ) THE power to make regulations is conferred upon the Governing Council under Section 40 of the Act. This power includes the one to create posts of Professors, Heads of Department, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Officers of Class I and II, post of teachers and officers, etc. , and the power to prescribe the qualifications and other service conditions. Under Section 2 of Section 40 of the Act, the Government is conferred with the power to make the first regulations, which can be altered or rescinded by the Government Council with the approval of the Government. It is, therefore, evident that the post of Head of the Department came to be created by the Governing Council. So far as the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is concerned, Section 12 of the Act confers the same in the Executive Board. The relevant part of the section reads as under:--" Power of Executive Board:-- (1) The Executive Board shall have the following powers, namely:-- (a) xx xx xx (b) to appoint from time to time such number of Officers and other employees and on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit for carrying out the management and affairs of the Institute; (c) to appoint such number of persons and on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit as for the conduct of the studies, investigations, research, teaching or other work undertake in by the Institute; (d) to exercise control and discipline over the employees of the Institute;" ( 8 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh made first regulations for the Institute in exercise of power under Section 2 of Section 40 of the Act, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 403, Health, Medical and Family Welfare, dated 24th June 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). These Regulations provided for the broad mechanism for working out the Act and supplemented the details of working and functioning of the various authorities and officers. Under Regulation 51, the Director is vested with the power to declare the Heads of the Departments of the Institute from time to time. These Regulations provided for the broad mechanism for working out the Act and supplemented the details of working and functioning of the various authorities and officers. Under Regulation 51, the Director is vested with the power to declare the Heads of the Departments of the Institute from time to time. ( 9 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, a reading of the impugned order indicates that certain irregularities in the functioning of the Cardiology Department were noticed and a Committee was constituted to go into the same. It is stated that the Committee submitted its report and the same was placed before the Executive Board for its perusal at its 27th Meeting. After this narration, the order reads as under:--"after careful consideration, the Executive Board desired to call for explanation from Dr. S. Jaishankar on the irregularities noticed by the committee. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against Dr. S. Jaishankar, HOD of Cardiology. In the meanwhile, in the interest of the institute and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 51 (vi) of NIMS Act 13 of 1989 and as approved by the 28th Executive Board, Prof. D. Seshagiri Rao, Head Unit-2 of Cardiology Department is hereby nominated as Head of the Department of Cardiology with immediate effect. " ( 10 ) THE emergence of the order can be said to have resulted as the cumulative effect of the resolutions of the Executive Board at its 27th and 28th meetings. The Director appears to be acting not as an independent authority, but giving effect to the resolutions passed by the Executive Board. A reading of the impugned order further indicates that it came to be passed only in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Such power having been vested with the Executive Board, the role of the Director should be confined to the one of implementing the directives of the Executive Board. ( 11 ) BEFORE examining as to whether the impugned order conforms to and accords with the respective resolutions of the Board, the power of the Director in the matter of nomination of Heads of the Departments needs to be verified. As observed earlier, the power to create the post of the Head of the Department is squarely conferred upon the Governing Council. The power to make appointments and initiate disciplinary proceedings is vested with the Executive Board. As observed earlier, the power to create the post of the Head of the Department is squarely conferred upon the Governing Council. The power to make appointments and initiate disciplinary proceedings is vested with the Executive Board. The role assigned to the Director in this regard is one of declaration. The same is evident from the following provision:"he shall have power to declare the Heads of Departments of the Institute from time to time. "the distinction of the language employed on conferring the powers of the Board, on one hand, and the Director, on the other, is significant and discernible. While the Executive Board is conferred with the power to appoint officers and employees, the Director is conferred with the power to declare Heads of the Departments. The process of appointment of an eligible person as Professor is constitutive, whereas making one, as the Head of the Department on the basis of seniority or rotation is declaratory, in nature. Though both may appear to be similar, a close scrutiny reveals a substantial difference. A constitutive process brings into existence a set of circumstances or state of affairs, which did not exist till then. A declaratory process, on the other hand, rather announces the state of affairs, which existed already. The significance of declaration is that it attaches a semblance of authenticity to what is declared. While the authority conferred with the power to appoint has the discretion to examine the eligibility, feasibility and desirability of a candidate before appointing him, no such latitude is available to the one who is conferred with the power to declare a position. ( 12 ) HEADS of the Departments are declared, made or appointed, as the case may be, in the Universities or Institutions, either on the basis of rotation, with a definite periodicity, or on the basis of the seniority. Either way, there is no element of selection or assessment. An incumbent gets declared as the Head of the Department by virtue of the place he occupies among the personnel of the same Department. Being declared as Head of the Department is incidental to holding the post of Professor in the Department. While one needs to be appointed as Professor, it needs only a declaration to make him Head of the Department. Being declared as Head of the Department is incidental to holding the post of Professor in the Department. While one needs to be appointed as Professor, it needs only a declaration to make him Head of the Department. Further, an officer declared or appointed as Head of the Department continues to hold the post only as long as he continues the concerned cadre post in the department, except where it is by rotation. That is the reason why no provision is made in the Act or the Regulations empowering the Director to recall the declaration, which he makes under Regulation 51. ( 13 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the Institute, the senior most Professor is declared as Head of the Department and he shall continue to hold that position as long as he continues to be the senior most Professor. The respondents do not dispute this. The power conferred on the Director, in this context, has to be understood to be the one to identify the senior most Professor in the same department and declare him as "head of the Department". As observed earlier, such declaration happens to be a matter of course. Neither, there is any convention nor any specific Rule enabling the Director to deviate from the Rule of seniority. In fact such a contention was not advanced. In that view of the matter, the occasion for the Director to declare an incumbent as the Head of the Department would arise if only the post becomes vacant. Such vacancy may occur either on a regular basis, when the incumbent retires or ceases to be a Professor; or on a temporary basis, when the incumbent is kept under suspension. Such an eventuality did not arise in this case. ( 14 ) FROM the above discussion, it is evident that the competent authority, either to appoint or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Professor, is the Executive Board and the right to be declared as the Head of the Department and to hold that position is incidental to the incumbent, being the senior most Professor in the Department. Further, the impugned order also suggests that the Director passed the same as a measure of implementation of the resolutions of the Executive Board at its 27th and 28th meetings. Further, the impugned order also suggests that the Director passed the same as a measure of implementation of the resolutions of the Executive Board at its 27th and 28th meetings. Now it is to be seen as to whether the Executive Board has, in its resolutions, contemplated the action taken by the Director through the impugned order. ( 15 ) IN the 27th meeting of the Executive Board, held on 28-12-2001, no item relating to the action against the petitioner, in particular, or the Cardiology Department, in general, figured as a subject. This, however, appears to have been taken as the other item with the permission of the Chair. The minutes relating to this subject read as under:"expiry stock of Cardiology Stores: The Chairman desired that explanation should be called from those responsible and should be submitted for further necessary action. "from this, it is evident that the Executive Board desired that an explanation be called from those responsible and the same be submitted for further necessary action. There is no indication from this resolution or minutes that the Executive Board had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings or to relieve the petitioner from the post of the Head of the Department. Even if it is to be assumed that the persons responsible referred to in the minutes is the petitioner, the purport of the resolution is nothing more than to call for an explanation from him. ( 16 ) THE next resolution is the one passed in the 28th meeting, held on 9-3-2002. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the matter relating to the petitioner was taken up as item No. 4 in the meeting and a resolution was passed thereon. The item as well as the resolution passed thereon read as under:"item No. 04. NIMS, Acad - Rotation of HODs resolution No: 572 - As per the NIMS Act, the Director is competent to nominate the HOD. Hence, the Board expressed that the Director can invoke his power and nominate the HOD as and when situation demands. " ( 17 ) THIS resolution also does not indicate that any specific or definite action was directed to be taken against the petitioner. The item refers to rotation of Head of the Departments without any reference to any particular department. It thereby indicates that it is a matter concerning all the departments in the Institute. " ( 17 ) THIS resolution also does not indicate that any specific or definite action was directed to be taken against the petitioner. The item refers to rotation of Head of the Departments without any reference to any particular department. It thereby indicates that it is a matter concerning all the departments in the Institute. Even if the benefit of doubt is given to the Institute, on account of the brevity of the item, and if the same is taken to be one, with specific reference to the petitioner, the resolution which is rather elaborate, does not indicate that the Executive Board has taken a decision to remove the petitioner as Head of the Department, as a temporary or other measure. ( 18 ) FROM the resolutions extracted above, it is evident that the Executive Board did not take any decision either directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings, or indicating any steps in contemplation of such proceedings. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is clearly beyond the scope and ambit of the resolutions of the Executive Board and it cannot be said to be a step in implementation of the resolutions of the Executive Board. The impugned order is independent and beyond the scope and ambit of the resolutions. Holding of the position or post of the Head of the Department, is almost comparable to ex-officio positions. Several members of the authorities under the Act, such as Governing Council, Executive Board, Academic Council, hold those posts ex-officio. For example, Dean faculty of the Institute is a member on the Governing Council as well as the Executive Board. As long as a person holds the post of Dean faculty of the Institute, he is entitled to be on the Governing Council as well as the Executive Board. Even if the competent authority entertains any doubt as to the competence of the Dean faculty, as a member of such authorities, the Dean cannot be deprived of his membership. Conversely, howsoever competent he may be, the moment he ceases to be a Dean, he ceases to be the member of the authorities also. Similarly, a senior most Professor in any Department is entitled to continue as the Head of the Department as long as he continues to be senior most Professor. Disciplinary proceedings, even if instituted against such incumbent, will be with reference to his appointment as Professor. Similarly, a senior most Professor in any Department is entitled to continue as the Head of the Department as long as he continues to be senior most Professor. Disciplinary proceedings, even if instituted against such incumbent, will be with reference to his appointment as Professor. The office of the Head of the Department by itself is not amenable to any disciplinary proceedings. If, as a consequence of the disciplinary proceedings, the incumbent ceases to be the senior most Professor, either on permanent or temporary basis, the same will certainly reflect on the incidental position of the Head of the Department and he will ceases to be so. Under these circumstances, the senior most Professor can not be relieved of the position of the Head of the Department in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. ( 19 ) THE declaration of a Professor as the Head of the Department has its own significance. It connotes the achievement of the person and the position he occupies in the department. The position is recognised under the Statute and the Regulations made thereunder. The same can be interfered or done away with only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the subordinate legislations. The foregoing discussion has indicated that no such provision exists enabling the Director to replace the petitioner with the 2nd respondent. ( 20 ) THE matter can be viewed from another angle. Even if it is assumed that the Director is vested with the power to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and that the post of Head of the Department is amenable to such disciplinary action, the impugned order does not state that the petitioner is placed under suspension as far as that post is concerned. Therefore, the question of displacing the petitioner and nominating the 2nd respondent, as Head of the Department, does not arise. The petitioner cannot be relegated to a worse position than the one where he is placed under suspension. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.