JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University drew our attention to Clause 2.09 (1) of the First Statute, which is as follows :- “If a casual vacancy occurs in the office of the Dean of a Faculty the senior most Professor, and where no Professor is available in that Faculty, the senior most teacher in the Faculty shall perform the duties of the Dean.” 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent University that the person, who has joined the University as Lecturer earliest, if becomes Professor, would be treated as the senior most Professor in terms of the said Rule. The learned counsel for the private respondent drew our attention to Rule 24 (1) to the Second Schedule to Central Universities Act, which is as follows:- “Whenever, in accordance with the Statutes, 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.” 3. It was submitted that at present the post of Head of the Department is a rotational post. It was also submitted that in such post he shall be treated as senior most who came in the grade first. 4. These submissions have been made in the background of the fact that the private respondent has been appointed as Head of the Department of the Faculty, which appointment has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the senior most Professor, but it is also the case of the private respondent as well as the respondent University that the private respondent is the senior most Professor. 5. The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the petitioner joined the University as Lecturer subsequent to the private respondent joined the University as Lecturer. The University issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Professor. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and was appointed as Professor on 31st July, 1998. Petitioner started discharging the duties of Professor since 31st July, 1998. The University issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Professor. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and was appointed as Professor on 31st July, 1998. Petitioner started discharging the duties of Professor since 31st July, 1998. On 9th June, 2001, private respondent obtained personal promotion to the post of Professor. He started discharging the duties of Professor since 9th June, 2001. The fact, however, remains that while promoting the private respondent to the post of Professor; such promotion was initially given with effect from 1st January, 1996 and later since 13th April, 1997. The question that has cropped up in the writ petition is, whether by virtue of the personal promotion given to the private respondent on 9th June, 2001 with effect from 13th April, 1997, private respondent can be regarded as senior to the petitioner. On 7th September, 2007, an amendment was effected to Clause 14 of the appendix to the Career Advancement Scheme dated 6th December, 2001. By that, it was provided that if an incumbent lecturer in senior scale/lecturer in selection grade/Reader (Promotion) is found suitable and recommended accordingly for promotion to the next higher senior scale/selection grade/Reader grade/Professor grade by the duly constituted Screening/Selection Committee, at the first instance, the next higher grade and designation would be admissible to him from the date of eligibility or 27th July, 1998, whichever is latter. The private respondent, therefore, if the said amendment is applicable to him, should be deemed to be entitled to the next higher grade and designation from 27th July, 1998 and not earlier. By reason of the conduct on the part of the respondent University, it does not appear that the University is proceeding on the basis that the said amendment applies to the private respondent, inasmuch as, it is still the contention of the respondent University that the private respondent obtained the next higher grade and designation of Professor with effect from 13th April, 1997. Be that as it may, obtaining of next higher grade and designation is one thing and counting of seniority is another. In Clause 2.09 of the Statute referred to above, the word used is “the senior most Professor”. The word used in Clause 24 (1) to the Second Schedule to the Central Universities Act uses the words “according to the length of continuous service of such person in his grade”. In Clause 2.09 of the Statute referred to above, the word used is “the senior most Professor”. The word used in Clause 24 (1) to the Second Schedule to the Central Universities Act uses the words “according to the length of continuous service of such person in his grade”. The fact remains that on 22nd May, 2000, when the Career Advancement Scheme was made compulsorily applicable in Clause 4 of the letter, it was specifically mentioned that the benefit of the promotion shall be given from the date of taking over the charge. The respondent University although has not produced annexure from serial No. 1.1 to 8 of the Career Advancement Scheme, but the fact remains that it has not been contended that the said Clause was not applicable when the order dated 9th June, 2001 was issued giving personal promotion to the private respondent under the Career Advancement Scheme. Be that as it may, the Vice Chancellor of the University, while construing Clause 24 (1) of the Rules referred to above, contained in Second Schedule to the Central Universities Act, made it clear that the seniority is to be determined by the length of continuous service within the grade in the University and if two or more persons have equal length of continuous service in a particular grade or the relative seniority of any person or persons is otherwise in doubt, seniority of the persons in previous grade in the University shall be taken note of. Therefore, in so far as, the seniority is concerned, it was made absolutely clear that it shall be the continuous length of service within the grade which shall alone be taken note of and not as submitted by the learned counsel for the University that if a person has joined earlier as Lecturer, even if he is promoted to the post of Professor latter, he shall be treated senior to the person who had been appointed earlier to him in the post of Professor. This decision of the Vice Chancellor was accepted by the Executive Council of the University on 16th June, 2011. Therefore, in so far as the University is concerned, there cannot be any confusion that the determination of the seniority will be dependant on the continuous service within the grade. This decision of the Vice Chancellor was accepted by the Executive Council of the University on 16th June, 2011. Therefore, in so far as the University is concerned, there cannot be any confusion that the determination of the seniority will be dependant on the continuous service within the grade. The fact remains that the private respondent became entitled to the next higher grade and the designation earlier than the petitioner, but he could only discharge the duties of Professor only when he was so permitted to discharge the duties of Professor, and that, admittedly took place subsequent to the petitioner being appointed to discharge the duties of Professor and, as such, in terms of the Rules governing the University, the petitioner was senior to the private respondent and accordingly, appointment of the private respondent to the post of Head of the Department, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, was unjust and interfereble. 6. We accordingly, allow the writ petition and set aside the appointment of the private respondent as Head of the Department of the department in question.