JUDGMENT C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the Selection of the 6th respondent as Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences in Cochin University which is claimed by appellant by rotation. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin University. 2. The appellant is a Selection Grade Lecturer in the department, who after implementation of the UGC scheme got re-designated as Associate Professor. Appellant’s specific case is that Associate Professor is equal to Reader and so much so, appellant is holding the post not below the rank of Reader and, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department by rotation. The provision based on which appellant claims appointment as Head of the Department on rotation basis is Statute 18 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Statute, 1991 which is as follows: “The Syndicate shall nominate a teacher not below the rank of Reader as Head of the Department according to seniority, on a rotational basis for a period of 3 years. It shall, however, be open to the teacher who has been nominated as Head of the Department to make a request that he shall be relieved of such responsibility for academic reasons. In such a case the next eligible teacher will be nominated as the Head of the Department. All the members of the teaching staff shall work under the directions of the Head of the Department. In case of Departments which have no Professor or Reader, the Syndicate shall nominate a Lecturer according to Seniority on a rotational basis as Head of the Department and the other teachers shall work under the directions of the Head of the Department.” Standing Counsel for the University on the other hand submitted that in order to be a Reader the person concerned has to be a Doctorate which appellant is not and so much so, appellant cannot be equated with Reader. 3. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that Statue 18 dealing with the matter is not amended to make it consistent with the hierarchy of faculty re-arranged under UGC scheme wherein there is no post of Reader and the posts available are Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. 3. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that Statue 18 dealing with the matter is not amended to make it consistent with the hierarchy of faculty re-arranged under UGC scheme wherein there is no post of Reader and the posts available are Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. What is clear from the above provision is that only senior members of the faculty are entitled to be appointed as Head of the Department because the entire teaching staff have to work under the Head of Department. It would, therefore, be absurd to provide for appointment of a relative junior man to be the Head of the Department because very senior members of the faculty cannot be expected to work under the instructions of a junior member of the Department. However, relative seniority from among eligible persons has no significance and that is why appointment is provided on a rotation basis every three years. In fact, the post of Head of the Department does not carry any additional pay or allowance but it is a requirement because every department necessarily should have a Head of the Department to guide, control and lead the members of the teaching faculty. We, therefore, feel the selection as of now based on the existing provision in Statute 18 cannot be interfered with because immediately prior to the re-designation of appellant as Associate Professor, the appellant was not a Reader eligible to be selected and appointed on rotation basis. However, there is a need to amend Statute 18 which has become redundant after the abolition of the post of Reader. This is because the minimum eligibility for appointment as Head of the Department under Statute 18 as of now is the position of Reader which is no longer available after implementation of UGC scheme. We, therefore, declare that Statue 18 is redundant for selection of Head of Department which needs to the immediately amended. We direct the University Syndicate to take steps for amendment of Statute 18 and to make a rational provision for appointment of Head of the Department on rotation basis or otherwise from among persons declared by them to be eligible from the hierarchy available under the UGC scheme. 4. We direct the University Syndicate to take steps for amendment of Statute 18 and to make a rational provision for appointment of Head of the Department on rotation basis or otherwise from among persons declared by them to be eligible from the hierarchy available under the UGC scheme. 4. If after the amendment, the appellant falls in the eligible category for appointment by rotation and if any other person above appellant is not entitled for appointment on rotation basis for the first time, then appellant will be appointed instead of allowing 6th respondent to retain the post on a second term or allowing another person to get the position on second term. Even though we do not wish to fix a time limit, we direct the Syndicate to take up the matter in their next meeting itself. Writ Appeal is disposed of modifying judgment of the learned Single Judge as above.