JUDGMENT C.R. DASH, J. : The facts in both the writ petitions being inter-related, they are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2.Whether the post of Placement Officer in Reader’s Grade in the P.G. Department of Business Administration under Utkal University is a teaching post or a non-teaching post, is the sole question that arises for consideration in W.P.(C) No.8570 of 2003. Legality of the order vide Annexure-10 in W.P.(C) No.17065 of 2011 relieving the petitioner from P.G. Department of Business Administration on 10.6.2011 and directing him to join in non-teaching post at P.G. Central Office, Utkal University is the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.17065 of 2011. 3.The petitioner’s case is that he joined as Placement Officer in the P.G. Department of Business Administration, Utkal University on 15.07.1996 vide order in Annexure-1. On successful completion of two years probation, petitioner’s service was confirmed on 3.6.1999 vide Annexure-3. Annexure-1 and 3 show that the petitioner was appointed as Placement Officer in the P.G. Department of Business Administration by the decision of the Syndicate dated 25.05.1996 and his service in the said post was also confirmed by the decision of the Syndicate. Vide letter of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi dated 13.3.1987 under Annexure-4, P.G. course in Business Administration was introduced in the Utkal University with 15 (fifteen) teaching posts and other non-teaching posts. Vide Annexure-5, the Government of Orissa in Education and Youth Services Department (presently re-designated as “Higher Education Department”) created 15 (fifteen) posts including post of Placement Officer. Besides the aforesaid posts, one post of Driver was also created. The Governor approved creation of the aforesaid posts, vide Annexure-6. Vide notification under Annexure-10, advertisement was issued for appointment of Reader/Placement Officer prescribing selfsame qualification for Reader and Placement Officer. The petitioner was selected through the process of selection and joined in the post of Placement Officer. The petitioner continued to receive salary from the allotment of the Government meant for teaching staff. In due course, in different pay revisions, pay attached to the post of Placement Officer has been equated with that of a Reader. Petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of teaching staff comes after Dr. B.K. Mangaraj, Reader (a non-party), who was Head of the Department of Business Administration for the session 2001-2003 (ending 31st May, 2003). The University Authorities have appointed Dr. Petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of teaching staff comes after Dr. B.K. Mangaraj, Reader (a non-party), who was Head of the Department of Business Administration for the session 2001-2003 (ending 31st May, 2003). The University Authorities have appointed Dr. Bidhu Bhusan Mishra (O.P.3) as the Head of the Department of Business Administration vide Annexure-14. It is alleged that opposite party No.3, who has become a Reader on Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) cannot claim seniority inter se over the petitioner, who is a direct recruit in the cadre of Reader. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner vide Annexure-16 represented before the Registrar, Utkal University (O.P.2) for his appointment as Head of the Department in the P.G. Department of Business Administration. The petitioner for redressal of his grievance had also made representation before the Chancellor, Utkal University (O.P.4) vide Annexures-18 and 19, but the same have not yet been forwarded to the Chancellor (O.P.4) by opposite parties 1 and 2. While the matter stood thus, the Registrar (O.P.2) on being directed by the Vice-Chancellor (O.P.1) had issued Annexure-20 stating therein that the post of Placement Officer in P.G. Department of Business Administration, Utkal University is not a teaching post as per the statute and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any assignment relating to teaching activity in the said department. Further, the petitioner’s pay as per the revised U.G.C. scale of pay along with increments has been withdrawn, directing further for recovery of the excess amount, in due course drawn by him. 4.When the petitioner had been asked to take classes, when the Chairman, P.G. Council vide Annexure-24 addressed to the Head of the P.G. Department of Business Administration had clarified and stated that the duty of the Placement Officer is that of a teacher, when the petitioner being Placement Officer was pursuing research activities as Research Guide in Business Administration discipline of the University being permitted by the University vide Annexure-25 and when the post of the petitioner is equated with that of a Reader with equal scale of pay, decision by the Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University to treat the post of Placement Officer as non-teaching post and to withdraw the pay the petitioner was drawing is alleged to be highly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is further alleged that appointment of opposite party No.3 as Head of Department of the P.G. Department of Business Administration vide Annexure-14 in utter disregard to the seniority of the petitioner is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5.While W.P.(C) No.8570 of 2003 was pending and interim protection was given to the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner vide order dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure-10) to W.P.(C) No.17065 of 2011 was relieved from the post of Placement Officer, MBA Department to join at P.G. Central Office, Utkal University. Such action on the part of the opposite parties and especially opposite party Nos.3 and 4 (in W.P.(C) No.17065 of 2011) is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.17065 of 2011. It is alleged that in spite of interim protection by the Court in W.P.(C) No.8570 of 2003, the petitioner having been relieved of his duty, the action of the opposite parties is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.The Registrar, Utkal University (opp.party No.2) in W.P.(C) No.8570 of 2003 has filed counter affidavit. It is specifically averred that though the post of Placement Officer is of Reader’s Grade and the scales of pay for both the posts are same, yet the post of Placement Officer is not covered under the teaching post. The aforesaid stand is rationalized by averring that the Government sanction order dated 05.08.1988 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition has distinctly mentioned about the creation of post of Placement Officer at serial No.4(iv) and Reader at serial No.4(ii) separately. The Chancellor’s approval vide order dated 13.08.1988 and Registrar’s letter dated 01.09.1987 clearly narrates the nature of duties attached tot he post of Placement Officer. It is further averred that from the very beginning, the petitioner was appointed as Placement Officer and continued as such in the post of Placement Officer with distinct nature of duties attached to that post, which cannot be quated with the duties of a Reader. It is also averred that the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 or the Orissa Universities First Statutes 1990 do not include Placement Officer in the cadre of teaching posts. It is also averred that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had sought for clarification from the University Grants Commission (‘U.G.C.’ for short) and the U.G.C. has clarified that no norm for the post of Placement Officer has been prescribed. It is also averred that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had sought for clarification from the University Grants Commission (‘U.G.C.’ for short) and the U.G.C. has clarified that no norm for the post of Placement Officer has been prescribed. 7.The U.G.C., by entering appearance through counsel, has also filed an affidavit. Though some averments have been made as regards the rules relating to inter se seniority between the direct recruit and promotee through Career Advancement Scheme, the affidavit filed by the U.G.C. throws no light as to whether the post of Placement Officer is a teaching post or a non-teaching post. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3-intervenor submits that there is no illegality in the appointment of opposite party No.3 as Head of the Department of the Business Administration especially in view of the fact that the post the petitioner is holding is a non-teaching post and he cannot claim seniority over him (opp.party No.3). 8.From the pleadings of the parties and the materials available on record, it is clear that there is no specific direction or prescription to give a ruling that the post of Placement Officer is a teaching post. Dr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Utkal University relies on Section 4(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 to submit that except Professors, Reader, Lecturers and such other teachers as may be prescribed to be the teachers of the University, no other employee can be held to be a teacher of the University. In view of such provision, it is submitted that the post of Placement Officer being not included in Section 4(2) of the aforesaid Act, the petitioner cannot be held to be holding a teaching post. 9.When there is no specific description of the post as to whether it is a teaching post or non-teaching post, the nature of the post is to be determined from the advertisement for recruitment, from the nature of duties assigned to the person holding the post, from the nature of appointment and the competence of the Appointing Authority, etc. Other similarly circumstanced posts can also be considered to find out whether such similarly circumstanced posts are recognized as teaching posts or not, in order to reach a conclusion in case of such controversy. 10.The advertisement for the post of recruitment of Placement Officer is filed in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Other similarly circumstanced posts can also be considered to find out whether such similarly circumstanced posts are recognized as teaching posts or not, in order to reach a conclusion in case of such controversy. 10.The advertisement for the post of recruitment of Placement Officer is filed in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. From Annexure-10, it is found that qualification prescribed for both the post of Reader and Placement Officer is same, percentage of marks they should acquire is same and both the post of Reader and Placement Officer have been advertised bracketing Reader/Placement Officer. Besides teaching, if we look at the nature of duties of the Placement Officer, it is more onerous than that of the Reader, because the Placement officer has to perform various duties, viz. he has to arrange for placement of the students and he has to look after all spade-works for such placement including the work of maintaining relationship with the industrial houses. Such a duty is however not continuous throughout the year and admittedly the petitioner is being assigned with teaching duties besides his duty as a Placement Officer. 11.From the advertisement vide Annexure-10, it is clear that qualifications for both Reader and Placement Officer are same and both the posts belong to the same Grade. Such a fact is also admitted by the University in its counter affidavit. 12.Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 provides thus :- “The teachers of a University shall be appointed by the Syndicate of that University on the recommendation of a Selection Committee after scrutinizing all the papers concerning the selection. The Orissa Universities First Statute 1990, in Chapter-2, Clause 4(2) provides thus :- “The teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Syndicate either on fixed tenure or permanent basis on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 21.” Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition clearly show that the petitioner was appointed by the decision of the Syndicate. In view of such fact, the petitioner may be treated as a teacher, if viewed from the perspective of the aforesaid provisions. Had the post of Placement Officer not been a teacher post, the appointment would not have been made by decision of the Syndicate. 13.Admittedly, the petitioner is assigned with teaching duties besides his work as a Placement Officer. In view of such fact, the petitioner may be treated as a teacher, if viewed from the perspective of the aforesaid provisions. Had the post of Placement Officer not been a teacher post, the appointment would not have been made by decision of the Syndicate. 13.Admittedly, the petitioner is assigned with teaching duties besides his work as a Placement Officer. A person from among the Readers can be posted as a Placement Officer on rotation basis or for a fixed tenure and a Placement Officer can vice-versa be posted as a Reader, as qualification for both the posts are same and both the posts have been advertised within one bracket for recruitment. 14.In course of hearing, we are told that in Berhampur University and Sambalpur University such a practice, as aforesaid, is in vogue. We also find no reason why a person having the same qualification shall not be given teaching assignment though he belongs to the Reader grade and gets Reader’s scale of pay and is assigned with teaching duties. If a view otherwise is taken and it is held that the Placement Officer is not a teaching post, the person holding the post of Placement Officer in spite of having the same qualification, experience, etc. may not get promotion to the higher grade and may be prejudiced. 15.Our attention is drawn to the fact that His Excellency the Chancellor has been pleased to clarify in the case of Berhampur University that the post of Placement Officer for the MBA Programme belong to the academic staff of the MBA Department and such a clarification has been issued vide letter No.708, dated 16.08.1991 from the Governor’s Secretariat. There is, however, no document before us to substantiate such a contention. 16.Regard being had to the discussions supra and especially the process of recruitment, appointing authority, nature of duties, qualifications, etc. so far as the posts of Reader and Placement Officer are concerned, we feel persuaded to hold that the post of Placement Officer for the MBA Programme under the Utkal University belongs to the academic staff of the MBA Department and, thus, a person holding the post of Placement Officer holds a teaching post. 17.In view of our discussions supra, relieving the petitioner from the MBA Department for facilitating his joining in the P.G. Central Office, Utkal University is also not sustainable. 17.In view of our discussions supra, relieving the petitioner from the MBA Department for facilitating his joining in the P.G. Central Office, Utkal University is also not sustainable. The petitioner, therefore, be re-posted in the MBA Department of the Utkal University either as a Placement Officer or as a Reader and his claim for appointment as Heads of Department be considered by the University Authorities. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. L. MOHAPATRA, J.I agree. Petitions disposed of.