ORDER : Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This appeal is an off-shoot of dispute raised in WA. No. 23 of 2012, which has been filed by NEHU and Ors. on the ground that learned Single Judge has decided the matter in wrong premises inasmuch as it has been held that the appointment of Dr. D. Bhattacharjee (respondent No. 6), was not made in accordance with provisions of Statute No. 7 of NEHU Statute. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal are that in terms of resolution No. EC: 83:94:5:01 of Executive Council of NEHU, the following Centres were established in the University, namely, (i) Centre for Adult and Continuing Education, (ii) Centre for Rural Development, (iii) Centre for Cultural and Literary Studies, (iv) Centre for Creative Arts, (v) Centre for Science Education, (vi) Centre for Eco-Development, (vii) Centre for Applied Statistics and (viii) Centre for Distance Education, which are equivalent to Department of Studies within meaning of Section 2(g) of North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973. According to Respondent No. 1, only one faculty position of Professor/Reader for NEHU was sanctioned in 6th Plan. 3. He joined Centre for Science Education as Reader in the year 1984 and was subsequently appointed as the Head of this Centre in September, 1985. According to respondent No. 1, on that date no one else except him was appointed as a Reader in Centre as only one post of Professor/Reader had been sanctioned by University Grants Commission. In 1991, he was promoted to post of Professor, and continued to work there as Head of this Centre, till there were certain developments embroiling the university into litigation. 4. University authorities vide Notification dated 4-9-1998 notified a regulation under Ordinance OA-3 and OA-11 of NEHU Ordinances whereby existing Centres became units within new Centres. It was also notified that Centre for Science Education, Centre for Adult and Continuing Education and Centre for Distance Education would form Centre for Supportive Learning Systems (CSLS). Consequently, respondent No. 3 herein was appointed as Unit-in-Charge for the Unit of Science Education vide the notification dated 3-11-2001 issued by Deputy Registrar, Establishment, NEHU. Terming the action of respondent authorities in making existing Centres as Units within new Centres upon reduction in status of Centre for Science Education as illegal, respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 183 (SH) of 2004 for appropriate relief. Terming the action of respondent authorities in making existing Centres as Units within new Centres upon reduction in status of Centre for Science Education as illegal, respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 183 (SH) of 2004 for appropriate relief. According to records respondent authorities having subsequently realized that their exercise was not in order, issued a notification dated 14-10-2004 abolishing all newly created Units with immediate effect. Thus Centre for Science Education came to be revived i.e. by restoring its status. This notification was followed by a consequential notification dated 8-11-2004 terminating the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Unit-in-Charge of Unit for Science Education. However, university authorities issued another notification dated 8-11-2004 appointing respondent No. 3 as Head of Centre of Science Education. Appointment of respondent No. 3 was questioned by respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 157 (SH) of 2005 during the pendency of earlier Writ Petition No. 183 (SH) of 2004, mainly on the ground that only one post of Professor/Reader was sanctioned under 6th Plan against which post he was appointed as Professor and further that respondent No. 3 belongs to Mathematics Department and not to Centre for Science Education. According to respondent No. 1, Statute 7 of North Eastern Hill University Statutes ("the Statutes" for short) clearly lays down that Head of any Department of University is to be appointed from amongst Professors of said Department, and in case where there is only one Professor, either the Professor or Reader can be appointed as Head of Department, but nowhere in Act or Statutes or Ordinances is it mentioned that a person from another Department can be appointed as Head of Department. A contention was also raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that once status quo ante has been restored following the abolition of Units so created, the status and position of respondent No. 1 as Head of revived Centre for Science Education should be restored. Besides when respondent No. 3 did not belong to Centre for Science Education, his appointment as Head of this Centre was illegal, and thus it was liable to be quashed. Besides when respondent No. 3 did not belong to Centre for Science Education, his appointment as Head of this Centre was illegal, and thus it was liable to be quashed. It is also a submission of respondent No. 1 that as he is the sole appointee in Centre for Science Education, none but he is entitled to be appointed as Head of Centre and that in view of his long and continuous service, he has a legitimate right to be restored to position of Head of Centre, and appointment of respondent No. 3 to post in question by ignoring his case was, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed to make way for his re-appointment. 5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Head of Centre for different periods, namely, for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 11-11-1985, for a period of another three years w.e.f. 11-11-1988 to 10-11-1991, again for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 11-11-1991 and last for a period of three years w.e.f. 11-11-1994 to 10-11-1997. With the reorganization of Centre into Units, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Head of Centre for Supportive Learning System for a period of three years vide Notification dated 21-9-2001, while respondent No. 3 was appointed as In-charge of Unit for Science Education vide Notification dated 3-11-2001, which he joined w.e.f. 8-7-2002. According to university authorities, respondent No. 1 did not take over charge as Head of Centre for Supportive Learning System. He continued to work as Head of Centre for Science Education till 1998 when it was reduced to a Unit. There was no illegality in re-organising Centres into Units, which were done in accordance with Regulations, Statutes, Ordinance and Act of the University. Similarly, there was also no illegality in abolishing these Units and in reviving various Centres. It was contended by the university authorities that respondent No. 3 was transferred along with his post from Pachhunga University College (PUC), Aizawl, and was posted in Centre for Science Education in terms of Notification dated 7-11-2004, and is accordingly, eligible to be appointed for Head of Centre for Science Education. It was contended by the university authorities that respondent No. 3 was transferred along with his post from Pachhunga University College (PUC), Aizawl, and was posted in Centre for Science Education in terms of Notification dated 7-11-2004, and is accordingly, eligible to be appointed for Head of Centre for Science Education. It was an specific case of respondent authorities that respondent No. 3 became a teacher of that Centre following his transfer along with post of Reader and is, therefore, qualified to be appointed as Head of Centre and that respondent No. 3 herein had absolutely no right to continue as Head of Centre. It was thus, submitted by respondent authorities that writ petition being devoid of merit was liable to be dismissed with cost. 6. Learned Single Judge while considering rival submissions noticed that respondent No. 3, herein (respondent No. 6 in writ petition) pleaded in his affidavit-in-opposition, that he was a Reader in the Center for Science Education, and when there was only one Professor in Centre occupied by respondent No. 1, his appointment as Head of Centre was in conformity with provisions of Statute 7(2) of Statutes, which says that in a case where there is only one Professor, Executive Council shall have option to appoint either Professor or Reader as Head of Department on recommendation of Vice-Chancellor. According to respondent No. 3, he was temporarily posted in Department of Mathematics in PUC, Aizawl by authority vide Order dated 17-2-1996, on which he joined on 1-3-1996. Thereafter, he was transferred with his post to Unit for Science Education on 26-7-2002, on which he joined on 10-8-2001. He took over charge of Unit-in-Charge of Unit for Science Education on 8-7-2002, which he held till his appointment was terminated by Notification dated 8-11-2004. He was, however, appointed as Head of Centre for Science Education in terms of Notification dated 8-11-2004, and he took over charge on 19-11-2004, with which he was continuing at the time of hearing of writ petitions. 7. Thus, posting of respondent No. 3 (herein) in Unit for Science for School Education by order dated 26-7-2001 was never challenged by respondent No. 1 and further that as a teacher when respondent No. 3 was transferred and posted in Centre along with his post, he becomes a teacher of Department/Centre for all purposes. 7. Thus, posting of respondent No. 3 (herein) in Unit for Science for School Education by order dated 26-7-2001 was never challenged by respondent No. 1 and further that as a teacher when respondent No. 3 was transferred and posted in Centre along with his post, he becomes a teacher of Department/Centre for all purposes. Thus, contention of respondent No. 3 before writ court was that Writ Petition (C) No. 157 (SH) of 2005 being devoid of merit was liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Single Judge also noticed that respondent No. 3, who was earlier temporarily posted in PUC, Aizawl, was transferred to NEHU Unit for Science Education, which he joined on 10-8-2001 vide Annexure-RXII whereafter by notification dated 5-11-2001, he was appointed as Unit-in-Charge of Unit for Science Education prior to its abolition. That order dated 26-7-2001 was never challenged by respondent No. 1; what he challenged in W.P. (C No. 183 (SH) of 2004 was not this order but notification dated 4-9-1998 reducing Centre in question for Science Education into a mere unit under Centre for Supportive Learning System. Thus, by way of filing WP(C) No. 157 (SH) of 2005, appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Reader in Centre for Science Education, which took place in 2001 could not have been challenged. In so far as contention of respondent No. 1 regarding induction of a Reader in Mathematics like respondent No. 3 to Centre for Science Education is concerned, this question was held by learned Single Judge to be too technical an issue to be examined by High Court in absence of experts in that field. Besides, having regard to the fact that respondent No. 1 had held post of Head of Centre from 11-11-1985 to 11-11-1997 i.e. initially for two years, which was extended for three years at a time for three times, his case was found to have merit. Thereafter, learned Single Judge proceeded to examine provisions of Statute 7 of the Statutes, which are as under: "Statute 7. (1) In the case of Departments which have more than one Professor, the Head of the Department shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from among the Professors. Thereafter, learned Single Judge proceeded to examine provisions of Statute 7 of the Statutes, which are as under: "Statute 7. (1) In the case of Departments which have more than one Professor, the Head of the Department shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from among the Professors. (2) In the case of Departments where there is only one Professor, the Executive Council shall have the option to appoint, on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor, either the Professor or a Reader as the Head of the Department: Provided that it shall be open to a Professor or Reader to decline the offer of appointment as the Head of the Department. (3) A person appointed as the Head of the Department shall hold office as such for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that, if the term of the Head ends during the academic session, it shall automatically stand extended up to the end of the concerned semester. Notwithstanding anything contained above a teacher shall cease to be Head on attaining the age of superannuation. (4) A Head of a Department may resign his office at any time during his tenure of office. (5) A Head of a Department shall perform such functions as may be prescribed by the Ordinances." 9. Learned Single Judge while further discussing the submissions has held that there was no dispute that Centre for Science Education is one of Centres of Studies so established, and is thus one of Departments as contemplated by Section 2(g) of NEHU Act. Therefore, appointment of Head of Centre for Science Education shall have to be made in conformity with provisions of Statute 7 of Statutes. Respondent No. 1 was admittedly the only Professor in Centre for Science Education, and was certainly senior to respondent No. 3. Clause (3) of Statute does not indicate the number of terms for which Head of Centre earlier appointed could be re-appointed. In absence of upper limit fixed for re-appointment as Head of Department, a Head of Department, once appointed could be considered for re-appointment. Clause (3) of Statute does not indicate the number of terms for which Head of Centre earlier appointed could be re-appointed. In absence of upper limit fixed for re-appointment as Head of Department, a Head of Department, once appointed could be considered for re-appointment. Consequently, there being no upper limit prescribed by Statutes for re-appointing respondent No. 1 as Head of Centre for Science Education and in view of use of expression "shall have the option to appoint" appearing in Clause 7(2) of Statute, a discretionary power has been conferred upon university authorities to appoint a Reader as Head of Centre even when there is a Professor. Learned Single Judge, thereafter proceeded to examine the questions; whether Clause 7(2) of Statute confers unfettered power to university authorities to appoint respondent No. 3 as Head of Centre when respondent No. 1 is higher in rank as well as senior to him? No doubt, by use of expression "shall have option to appoint" a Reader in terms of clause 7(2) even where there is a Professor in the Centre could be considered for appointment. 10. However, after analyzing the legal position, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that appointment of respondent No. 3 who was junior to respondent No. 1 (herein) and who was holding a lower post as a Reader was without a valid reason. There was no basis to place respondent No. 1 under his junior respondent No. 3 who was only a Reader. Thus, respondent university authority failed to take into account the provisions of statute 7(3) which conferred upon respondent No. 1 right to be considered for appointment as Head of Centre for Science Education. Any exercise of discretion by administrative authority is subject to judicial review which is available in cases of failure to exercise discretion in a case of abuse of discretionary power or illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Authority cannot be compelled to use its discretion in a particular manner. Authority should have addressed itself to the issue. Executive Council of University should not have acted under the dictates of Vice Chancellor. Authority concerned must have regard to relevant consideration. In instant case, legitimacy of expectation of respondent No. 1 was based on sanction of law, custom and an established procedure followed in natural course. Thus, learned Single Judge allowed writ petition of respondent No. 1 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 11. Authority concerned must have regard to relevant consideration. In instant case, legitimacy of expectation of respondent No. 1 was based on sanction of law, custom and an established procedure followed in natural course. Thus, learned Single Judge allowed writ petition of respondent No. 1 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for parties reiterated their submissions made before learned Single Judge during the course of hearing. These submissions have been discussed in detailed and answered by learned Single Judge. During the course of argument, it was informed that Centre for Science Education is a part of School of Physical Sciences. Thus, in our view, if in one department there was only one Professor, in that case, chance could have been given to another department having a Professor or to respondent No. 1 for whose re-appointment there was no statutory bar under statutes of university, and University Authority should not have preferred a Reader over a Professor for such appointment. There was a legitimate expectation on the part of respondent No. 1 and on that ground, if appointment of respondent No. 3 had been made in arbitrary manner in contradiction of doctrine of legitimate expectation, it could not have been sustained. University authorities should have rather applied the principle of reasonableness. Preferring a Reader over a Professor in the field of academics in exercise of powers under statute 7(2) of statute of university appears to be incongruous and anomalous. Thus, learned Single Judge is correct in allowing the writ petition by impugned judgment and order. There is always a preference for excellence in the field of academics and with experience of respondent No. 1, having worked as Head of Department for a long tenure, Centre of Science Education could have been immensely benefited from his appointment as Head of Department. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal and it is hereby dismissed.