JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th June, 2007 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (for short the University) and memo dated 21st July, 2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration-T) of the University communicating the order impugned to the petitioner by which the claim of petitioner for Chairmanship of Hindi Department of the University has been rejected by saying that the petitioner has now become senior to Prof. P. K. Saxena, the respondent No. 4 herein, and the cycle of rotation moves from upward to downward and not in zig-zag manner, therefore, he will get chance of Chairmanship as and when the cycle of rotation starts afresh. The seniority position of Professors in the department of Hindi is as follows : 1. Prof. K.M.Misra. 2. Prof. R.C.Sharma. 3. Prof. Pradeep Kumar Saxena. 4. Prof. M. Ehtesham Zuberi. 5. Prof. Arif Nazir. 6. Prof. Abdul Alim. 2. Senioritywise, the Chairmanship should go to the petitioner immediately after the tenure of Prof. K.M. Misra ends, as his position stands in the second place. As per the eligibility criteria, the candidate should be a Professor. But it so happened that for the cadre post of Professor, the General Selection Committee was held on 10th May, 2003, in which both, the petitioner and the 3rd empanelled candidate as above, appeared and the petitioner was unsuccessful, therefore, the 3rd empanelled candidate was appointed on the post of Professor. In further selection for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Professor on 25th April, 2007 and was given all benefits with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 4th June, 2002, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the Chairmanship, being in the second place as above, but the 3rd empanelled candidate was given Chairmanship. However, by the passage of time, the Chairmanship of 3rd empanelled candidate has expired, therefore, the petitioner being 2nd empanelled candidate and having been superseded by the 3rd empanelled candidate as mentioned above, should have been given Chairmanship. In spite of that being so, the 4th empanelled candidate as above, has been given Chairmanship in the month of January, 2009, when the writ petition itself was pending. In spite of that being so, the 4th empanelled candidate as above, has been given Chairmanship in the month of January, 2009, when the writ petition itself was pending. However, at an interim stage a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 17th December, 2008 had directed that meanwhile if any appointment to the post of Chairman is made, the same will be subject to decision of this case. 3. Under the order impugned, the stand of the University is that since the cycle of rotation cannot go in a zig-zag manner, therefore, when all the persons as aforesaid will complete their rotation, then only the chance of petitioner will come and not before that, whereas to that extent the stand of the petitioner is that only two years are left for the petitioner to retire from service, consequently, his chance will never come and as a result thereof he will be deprived of the Chairmanship for no fault on his part. The petitioner cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 , to establish that if under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, administrative action is to be struck down as discriminative, proportionality applies and it is primary review. If it is held arbitrary, wednsebury applies and it is secondary review. This principle is now uniformly followed in all Courts more rigorously than the one based on classification. Arbitrary action by the administrator is described as one that is irrational and not based on sound reason. It is also described as one that is unreasonable and it can be struck down as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have gone through the chart prepared by the petitioner and annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 3, from which it appears that admittedly the petitioner is senior to the persons who have been given Chairmanship but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has drawn our attention towards different aspects of the matter. 4. We have gone through the chart prepared by the petitioner and annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 3, from which it appears that admittedly the petitioner is senior to the persons who have been given Chairmanship but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has drawn our attention towards different aspects of the matter. He submitted with reference to Statute 30 (1) of the Statutes of the University within the meaning of Section 28 (1) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (Act No. XL of 1920) that whenever any person is to hold an office or be a member of an authority of the University by rotation according to seniority, such seniority shall be determined according to the length of continuous service of such person in his grade, and, in accordance with such other principles as the Executive Council may from time to time prescribe. He further submitted that as per the Notification dated 29th June, 1988 the seniority of a Professor/Reader appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme should be counted from the date of issue of order relating to such appointment, notwithstanding the fact that he has been given retrospective appointment from an earlier date. Such retrospective appointment should be deemed to be for the purpose of payment of salary and retirement benefits etc. and not for the purpose of seniority. Such notification was issued by the Registrar. However, Director, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education intimated on 26th December, 1994 to the Registrar that according to Statute 30 (1) of the Statutes of the University, the seniority “shall be determined according to length of continuous service” in the grade. Viewed in the background of Statute 30(1), the notifications issued by the Executive Council on June 29 and December 20, 1988 are contrary as the provisions contained therein lacking in legal force. The clarifications given by the University vide their above referred letter dated July 24, 1993 are not sustainable and thereby the President of India in his capacity as Visitor of the University has, therefore, been pleased to quash the proceedings determining the seniority of two Professors between whom the dispute arose. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that such order though made by the Visitor, cannot be sustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Prof. S.A. Siddiqui v. Prof. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that such order though made by the Visitor, cannot be sustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Prof. S.A. Siddiqui v. Prof. M.Wajid Khan and others, AIR 1999 SC 604 , wherein it has already been observed by the Supreme Court that retrospective appointment should be deemed to be for the purpose of payment of salary and retirement benefits etc. and not for the purpose of seniority. Statute 30 laid down rules providing for inter se seniority between Professors appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme and Professors appointed under the general scheme. In doing so, the Executive Council has acted within its statutory powers. The Aligarh Muslim University has, therefore, rightly prepared seniority list of Professors in accordance with the regulations framed by the Executive Council. 5. According to us, each and every case is to be decided on the basis of factual matrix therein. Such dispute arose before the Supreme Court only in respect of inter se seniority amongst the candidates who were appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme and the candidates appointed under the general scheme, which has got nothing to do with regard to placement of the petitioner in the post of Chairman according to his admitted seniority position over and above the persons to whom such appointments are given. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University also contended before us that the Chairman has to perform two specific duties. One with regard to teaching and the other with regard to research, therefore, no interruption should be there with the research work. Curtailment of the period, if any, of the Chairmanship will be impractical. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that such post does not entail any monetary benefit. It only relates to the administrative exigency. The University has tried to develop its case in the counter-affidavit but under the order impugned petitioner’s right has been jeopardised by saying that the cycle of rotation does not move zig-zag. 7. According to us, the scheme of seniority as per the notification dated 29th June, 1988 issued by the Registrar of the University has no application in this case because it is not a case of seniority simpliciter. It is a matter of placement as Chairman as per the seniority without any financial benefit. 7. According to us, the scheme of seniority as per the notification dated 29th June, 1988 issued by the Registrar of the University has no application in this case because it is not a case of seniority simpliciter. It is a matter of placement as Chairman as per the seniority without any financial benefit. The respondent No. 4 had been placed in the respective post because the petitioner did not qualify at the relevant point of time but subsequently when he had qualified with retrospective effect, he had rightly claimed his placement in such post. Now even such situation is no more prevalent in view of expiry of tenure of respondent No. 4. The petitioner could have been placed as Chairman but surprisingly he had been bypassed wrongly or erroneously taking plea of zig-zag movement of the cycle which is absolutely baseless. The Court is further surprised to see hurried appointment of new incumbent i.e. the respondent No. 5, admittedly junior to the petitioner, even during pendency of the writ petition particularly when a Division Bench in its order dated 17th December, 2008 observed as under : “Meanwhile, if any appointment to the post of Chairman is made during this period, the same shall be subject to the decision of this case.” Assuming delay in filling up such vacancy may lack supervision of teaching and research work but when Court earlier cautioned the authority by saying any appointment will be subject to the decision of the case and as we find no zig-zag movement could have been taken place by the petitioner’s placement, it is entirely risk and responsibility of the University to place a third party junior to the petitioner, for which they have to suffer. However, it is also important to see on our part that nobody should suffer by such act. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner will be placed as Chairman immediately upon displacing the present incumbent, who will be re-placed for his remaining period when the tenure of petitioner will come to an end. However, such placement of the petitioner will be made with a rider upon him that in case any policy decision has been taken by the present incumbent as Chairman in respect of the research work, the same will not be interfered by the petitioner during his tenure. This will only be the equitable solution amongst the parties. 8. However, such placement of the petitioner will be made with a rider upon him that in case any policy decision has been taken by the present incumbent as Chairman in respect of the research work, the same will not be interfered by the petitioner during his tenure. This will only be the equitable solution amongst the parties. 8. With the above observations and order, the writ petition is disposed of, however, without any order as to cost. Honble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. ————