Order In the present Writ Application, petitioner assails the decision of the Respondent-Patna University to appoint private respondent no. 4 as Dean of 'Faculty of Social Sciences of Patna University. He wants quashing of Memo No. 1187/R, dated 14.11.2011, contained in Annexure11. It is the stand of the petitioner that such appointment is against the provisions of the statute, which includes maintenance of a proper register of the University, showing their respective seniority position as University Professor, which is required to be done statutorily, but has not been done in the present case. 2. It is the categorical submission of the petitioner that he is the senior-most University Professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences. Appointment of the private respondent no. 4, is not only violative of his right for such appointment, by virtue of seniority, but even breach of the statute under which such a decision has come to be taken. 3. As per the averment in the Writ Application, petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 9.11.1970 under Patna University in the Department of Labour and Social Welfare. The Bihar Public Service Commission gave the concurrence and has also made recommendation for his appointment, by virtue of notification dated 24th of July, 1973, contained in Annexure-1. The date of recommendation by the B.P.S.C. is said to be 18.7.1973. 4. Due to satisfactory service. of the petitioner, he earned due promotion as Reader on 9.8.1983. The fact corroborated as per notification, issued by the University, contained in Annexure-2. Petitioner also became a University Professor w.e.f. 9.11.1986, when notification conferring such benefit on large number of persons, including the present petitioner, was issued on 31.3.2000 (Annexure-3). 5. There was some dispute as to what would be the date of actual promotion on the post of University Professor or Reader, based on the fact whether the date of registration of a Research Scholar under a University Professor or a Reader would be a determinative factor for grant of such promotion or completion of the research under the Professor or the Reader Dispute traveled to the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10671 of 1999, which according to the petitioner was never implemented, leaving ambiguity in this field and allowing University authorities to have their leverage. 6. Date of promotion of petitioner as University Professor was shifted from 9.11.1986 to 25.4.1988. This was done vide Memo No. 29.6.2005, annexed with the Writ as Annexure-5. 6. Date of promotion of petitioner as University Professor was shifted from 9.11.1986 to 25.4.1988. This was done vide Memo No. 29.6.2005, annexed with the Writ as Annexure-5. Litigations led to annulment of both Annexures-4 and 5 and taking into consideration the observation of the Court rendered in L.PA No. 607 of 2006, University issued a fresh notification on 1.2.2007, annulling the change in the date of promotion in relation to the petitioner. Initially vide notification, contained in Annexure-9, dated 13.1.2011, petitioner was given the benefit of promotion as a Professor w.e.f. 9.11.1986. 7. Despite the status of seniority conferred upon the petitioner by a totally whimsical and arbitrary decision the Vice Chancellor of Patna University decided to Ignore the claim of the petitioner in matter of appointment as a Dean of Faculty for Social Sciences at the cost of petitioner. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the Patna University Act, 1976, coupled with the statute notified under the Act, categorically lays down the procedure, which is to be followed in such appointment of Dean, but still in gross violation thereof decision in favour of the private respondent has been taken, which is highly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and his seniority. 9. The relevant provision with regard to the appointment of Dean is Section 27 of the Patna University Act, 1976, especially Section 27(5)(a), which says as follows:- "(5)(a) The Dean of Faculty.-The Dean of Faculty shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the University Professors and the Principals of the rank of University Professors, for two years by rotation in the concerned Faculty in the manner prescribed by the Statutes: Provided that where there is no teacher or Principal of the rank of University Professor in the Faculty, the Dean of Faculty shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor by rotation for a term of two years from amongst the Heads of Departments and the Principals of the rank of Readers in the manner prescribed by the Statutes: Provided further that where there IS no University Department in the Faculty, the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint a Principal of a College of a rank lower than the University Professor to be the Dean of Faculty by rotation for a term of two years, in the manner prescribed by the Statutes." 10. There is even a statute as to how Section 27(5) (a) is to be implemented or enforced. duly notified in the year 1982. The said statute is also being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference and easy appreciation of the issues, which arise for consideration:- " (Assented to by the Chancellor on 23.3.1982, vide letter no. BSU-8/82731/GS(1), dated 27.03.1982) 1. (a) For the purpose of appointment of Deans of Faculties, the Registrar shall maintain a register of those .teachers (including Principals of Colleges) who are duly appointed as University Professors or are in the rank of University Professor of Faculty wise arranged in order of seniority and the appointment of Deans in the Faculty concerned shall be made accordingly by rotation. (b) In a faculty in which there is no University Professor or Principal in the rank of University Professor, the Registrar shall maintain a list of Heads of University Departments in the rank of Reader in the Faculty concerned in order of seniority and the appointment of Dean, in that faculty shall be made accordingly by rotation. (c) In the faculty in which there is even no University Department the Registrar shall maintain a list of Principals of Colleges who are below the rank of University Professor, in order of seniority and the appointment of Dean in that faculty shall be made accordingly by rotation. 2. For the purpose of Article 1 (a), (b) and (c) above the seniority shall be reckoned with effect from the date of appointment as or in the rank of University Professor, or as Reader or Principal as the case may be: Provided that: (i) Amongst two or more such teachers appointed in the same rank whose inter-seniority cannot be decided by relevant provisions of the Statutes, the order of rotation shall be according to the year of establishment of the Department and/or the Colleges, as the case may be: (ii) If more than one rotation shall be according to the names of the same year the order of rotation shall be according to the names of the Departments/Colleges arranged in alphabetical order in the Hindi (Devnagari Script). 11. 11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the process for appointment of the Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences was initiated, name of the petitioner was recommended over and above the private respondent, by virtue of his appointment on 9.11.1986 as a Professor and the name of the private respondent figures below him. The Vice-Chancellor unilaterally, behind the back of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity or verifying the facts as to the actual state of affairs held the private respondent to be senior to the petitioner and ordered her appointment on the post of the Dean. This fact emerges from the notings which has come on record annexed with the rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner filed on behalf of the Patna University. The notings are annexed as Annexure-B. The question, therefore, which is to be decided by this Court is whether decision to appoint private respondent as a Dean of Social Sciences under Patna University is in conformity with the Act, Rules or Statutes and whether the decision so taken conforms to the test of reasonableness and satisfies the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. 12. Stand of the counsel, representing the private respondent is that the claim of seniority being made by the petitioner is not based on true and actual state of affairs and he has reason to submit so. It is his stand that Annexure-1 annexed with the Writ Application is truncated piece of document used by the petitioner to his advantage, which does not indicate the true state of affairs. The complete notification has been annexed in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 as Annexure-R/2. This is the original and actual notification, dated 24th of July 1973. The initial date of appointment of the petitioner has been shown to be 9.11.1970, but the date of recommendation of the B.P.S.C. is 18.7.1973. 13. The notification in paragraph no. 2 categorically states:- "2. They will get the benefit of their earlier service in respect of pay, but their seniority will count from the date of concurrence." 14. The initial date of appointment of the petitioner has been shown to be 9.11.1970, but the date of recommendation of the B.P.S.C. is 18.7.1973. 13. The notification in paragraph no. 2 categorically states:- "2. They will get the benefit of their earlier service in respect of pay, but their seniority will count from the date of concurrence." 14. Submission of the counsel for the private respondent is that though the petitioner was earlier engaged on a temporary basis by the University, may be in the year 1970, but he acquired a legal status only w.e.f. 18.7.1973, when the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. was made as well as the concurrence given. Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of appointment on a prior date de hors Annexure-1 and its terms now. 15. So far as the private-respondent is concerned, she was appointed in terms of the notification issued by the University as a Lecturer as far back as on 16.10.1971, much before the petitioner came into existence, as a validly appointed Lecturer under the University. Petitioner may have got promotions on the post of Reader or Professor under time bound promotion scheme, but those promotions in no manner affect the right of the private respondent, so far as her seniority is concerned. The basic seniority will have to be reckoned from the date of her initial appointment on the recommendation and concurrence of the B.P.S.C. and if that is taken into consideration the claim of the petitioner being senior viz-a-viz the private respondent has no legs to stand. The notification contained in Annexure-R/2 is the foundation from where the claim of the petitioner has to be reckoned and his case for seniority tested. The notification clearly states that the petitioner was entitled for pay for the service earlier rendered, but the seniority will be counted from the date of the concurrence. The concurrence of the private respondent is from the year 1971, which was never challenged or questioned by the petitioner at any point of time. 16. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the time bound promotion scheme, which was put in place in the year 1986 with special emphasis and reference to Article 9 of the said Statute. The Statute 9 says as under:- "9. The inter-se seniority of the teachers will not be adversely affected by the time bound promotion." 17. 16. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the time bound promotion scheme, which was put in place in the year 1986 with special emphasis and reference to Article 9 of the said Statute. The Statute 9 says as under:- "9. The inter-se seniority of the teachers will not be adversely affected by the time bound promotion." 17. Submission of the private respondent, therefore, is that promotions granted to the petitioner under time bound promotion scheme is his personal promotion, but that will in no manner affect her seniority overall when the actual dispute about who is senior amongst the two arises. The private respondent was a Teacher in the Department of History and the petitioner belongs to the Social Sciences Department. They had no clash of interest and therefore, there was no occasion for the private respondent to raise any objection about the promotions under the time bound promotion scheme granted to the petitioner. However, when the question of appointment on the post of Dean arose, the private respondent did represent before the Vice-Chancellor that she was senior in matter of appointment as her appointment by the B.P.S.C. was made on 15.7.1971, whereas as per the notification issued by the University based on the recommendation of the B.P.S.C., appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer has been notified as 18.7.1973. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim benefit of past services for the purposes of seniority, especially when the said notification is categorical with regard to the past service and this position was never assailed, challenged or protested by the petitioner at any point of time. In fact, there was an effort by the petitioner to mislead the Court by annexing a truncated notification, contained in Annexure-1 to the Writ Application, so that the true facts are not reflected in adjudication of the dispute relating to seniority. 18. Having taken note of the rival contention and the materials produced on behalf of parties, coupled with the actual state of affairs with regard to he initial appointment of the petitioner and the private-respondent on the post of a Lecturer, this Court has no hesitation in recording that appointment of private respondent on the post of Dean, by virtue of seniority is no aberration on the part of the Respondent-University, which merits interference in the present Writ Application. 19. 19. No doubt, it is not seriously disputed by the counsel representing the University that may be the University has failed to maintain a register indicating the seniority of the University Professors from where the senior-most Professor has to be picked up for appointment as a Dean, hut then the object of maintenance of such register is only to have a ready list of senior Professors which forms the pool from where the names are picked up. Absence of a register will not be fatal to the selection. 20. Since Court is satisfied that the private respondent is senior by virtue of her earlier appointment on the post of a Lecturer vis-a-vis the petitioner and the time bound promotion granted to the petitioner are personal promotions, which in no way affects the overall seniority in terms of Article 9 of the Statute, the Writ Application has no merit and it is dismissed, accordingly.