ORDER Appeal is admitted. Parties by counsel. In view of the controversy which has been raised before us, we deem it proper to dispose of the appeal at this stage itself and we proceed accordingly. 2. The controversy centres around the aspect as to amongst the appellant and respondent no. 5, who should have been made the Professor Incharge of Sri Krishna Mahila College, Begusarai until the selection of the regular Principal was made. 3. That the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Philosophy on 23d February, 1976 is not in dispute. It is a so not in dispute that respondent no. 5 was also appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science on that very day. The Senior Counsel for the appellant and respondent no. 5 are ad idem that since both the parties belong to different disciplines, there could not have been inter se seniority as such between them. They also do not join an issue that for the purposes of Professor Incharge, some criteria was required to be applied to find out, to that extent, as to who was senior amongst them having been appointed on the same date. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5 (original petitioner), heavily relied upon Statute-15 which was approved by the Chancellor on 1.12.1978. An English translation of the said Statute was placed by the Senior Counsel for the appellant before us for our perusal. It reads thus: "STATUTES REGARDING REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF PURELY TEMPORARY LECTURERS. (As approved by the Chancellor on 1.12.1978 vide his Deputy Secretary's letter no. An English translation of the said Statute was placed by the Senior Counsel for the appellant before us for our perusal. It reads thus: "STATUTES REGARDING REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF PURELY TEMPORARY LECTURERS. (As approved by the Chancellor on 1.12.1978 vide his Deputy Secretary's letter no. 3666/GS (1) 16.11.1978) Notwithstanding anything contained in the statute relating to the appointment of lecturers, such lecturers of the University, who have been working on 19th November, 1977, shall be appointed on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission/University Service Commission, on the basis of following conditions:– (1) Such temporary lecturers appointed in the University Service, who has completed actual service of 18 months in all, on 30.6.77, in any University/Department of the State of Bihar or in one or more than one constituent or affiliated college for two or more than two academic sessions and in opinion of the Chancellor, the following conditions are fulfilled in temporary appointment, the Vice-Chancellor may refer to the Bihar Public Service Commission for making recommendation in respect of his appointment in the University Service, in accordance with the Act and considering his matter, the Bihar Public Service Commission may recommend for appointment by the University:– (Ka) The post on which the concerned lecturer is working at present should be duly created. (Kha) All those posts, on which actual service of at least 18 months is completed on 30.6.77 including appointment, were duly created at the time of appointment. (ga) Prior to actual service of 18 months on 30.6.77, his appointment to the duly sanctioned post of lecturer in any University/constituent college, was made on the recommendation of selection committee constituted by University, college on the basis of the advertisement in a daily newspaper recognized by the State Government for such advertisement i.e. Indian Nation, Search Light, Pradeep, Aryavarta or any prominent daily Newspaper of India and the assistance of expert or experts was taken in selection by the selection committee and selection list was prepared on the basis of qualification prescribed in Statute. (gha) His work has been satisfactory. (2) The seniority of such lecturers shall be calculated from the date of recommendation made by State Public Service Commission and his annual increment shall also be admissible on the basis of the same date. (gha) His work has been satisfactory. (2) The seniority of such lecturers shall be calculated from the date of recommendation made by State Public Service Commission and his annual increment shall also be admissible on the basis of the same date. (3) Such temporary lecturer whose actual service period on the duly sanctioned post, has been less than 18 months but 6 months or more on 30.6.77 and he has been working against duly sanctioned permanent post on 9th September, 1977 and all the conditions prescribed in aforementioned sub-para 1 are fulfilled in his appointment, the commission may call him for the interview held on advertisement of his post which was prescribed in the Statute of the concerned University at the time of his permanent appointment. (4) In sending the matters of temporary lecturers appointed in afiliated colleges by the Vice-Chancellor with his recommendation, for consideration of the University Service-Commission, the same conditions and procedures shall be followed which are prescribed in the aforementioned sub-para 1 relating to the temporary lecturers appointed in the University Service. Note.-(1) Both the words "Pradhyapaka" and "Vyakhyata" mentioned in this statute, carry the same meaning i.e. "lecturer". (2) The statute cited in this article was approved by the Chancellor on 1.11.1978 and the same was circulated by his Deputy Secretary vide Letter No. 3666 G.S. (1) dated 16th November, 1978. 5. We read and re-read the said Statute to find out its relevance in deciding the controversy in hand but we are pained to say that we could not find the said Statute relevant at all. Statute-15, quoted above, relates to regularisation of services of purely temporary Lecturers who were working in the University on 19th November, 1977. It is not even remotely applicable to the controversy in hand. That the appellant as well as respondent no. 5 were appointed substantively on the recommendation of the University Service Commission on 23rd February, 1976 as indicated above, is not in dispute. Since the appellant as well as respondent no. 5 were appointed on the same date and there is no provision, directly or indirectly, governing the determination of seniority of two Professors in the University in different subjects appointed on the same date, the senior in age has to be considered as senior for the purpose of Professor Incharge. This is in accord with the principles of service jurisprudence. 5 were appointed on the same date and there is no provision, directly or indirectly, governing the determination of seniority of two Professors in the University in different subjects appointed on the same date, the senior in age has to be considered as senior for the purpose of Professor Incharge. This is in accord with the principles of service jurisprudence. Seen thus, the view of the Chancellor of University of Bihar, articulated in his order dated 15th January, 2007, that Dr. Smt. Savitri Sinha is senior to Dr. Smt. Banmala on the ground that her date of birth is 1st July, 1947 which is earlier than the date of birth of Dr. Banmala which is 20th February, 1948 cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. 6. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge suffers from wrong approach. Besides that the Single Judge erred in applying the provision of sub-clause (2) of Clause-4 of Statute-15 which is not even remotely applicable. 7. We are of the considered view that the order of the Chancellor does not warrant reconsideration, as has been ordered by the Single Judge. 8. We, accordingly, allow this Letters Patent Appeal and quash and set aside the order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the Single Judge. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the present respondent no. 5 (original petitioner) stands dismissed. No order as to cost.