JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. - Subash Chandra Parija, a Senior Professor and Head of Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, is the petitioner in both the above noted writ petitions. By means of W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2019, he seeks to quash the office order dated 07.03.2019 in Annexure-6; by which, in pursuance of letter dated 06.03.2019 of the Special Secretary to Chancellor, Raj Bhavan, Bhubaneswar, the opposite party no.5- Prof (Dr.) Lakshman Kumar Babu, Professor and Head, Department of Livestock Production and Management College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar was directed to remain in-charge of interim Dean of College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar in place of Dr. Pravat Kumar Roul; and consequential letter dated 08.03.2019 under Annexure-7, by which the opposite party no.5 assumed the charge of interim Dean of the College in question. Whereas, by way of W.P.(C) No. 10625 of 2019, he seeks to quash Annexure-8, the circular dated 11.06.2019 issued by the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology inviting applications from amongst the Professors and persons of equivalent rank of the University for the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, as per which the candidates should furnish, holding administrative posts with the supporting documents. Since both the writ petitions are analogous to each other, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment which will govern in both the cases. 2. The factual matrix, which lead to filing of above mentioned two writ petitions, in a nutshell is that the petitioner, having cleared Master Degree in Veterinary Science in Pharmacology and Toxicology from Indian Veterinary Research Institute, ICAR, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh on 19.12.1989, was appointed, by following due procedure of selection, as Lecturer in the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT), Bhubaneswar, vide office order dated 22.03.1990, pursuant to which he joined on 23.03.1990. He continued as such till 30.12.1999. Thereafter, he got promotion to the post of Associate Professor and joined on 31.12.1999. Subsequently, on receiving foreign fellowship and research exposure, he went for higher study for the period 2001-2003. He continued as such till 30.12.1999. Thereafter, he got promotion to the post of Associate Professor and joined on 31.12.1999. Subsequently, on receiving foreign fellowship and research exposure, he went for higher study for the period 2001-2003. After completion of such study, he joined in the OUAT and resumed his duty and continued till 30.12.2007. Thereafter, on 31.12.2007, he got promotion to the post of Professor on Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), as he had completed 8 years as Associate Professor. Since then, he has been remaining in charge of Head of Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry of OUAT, Bhubaneswar. 2.1 The petitioner has got to his credit research and teaching experience of 29 years and three months from 23.03.1990. As Professor, he has acquired experience of 11 years and 6 months w.e.f. 31.12.2007. He has also got administrative experience of 11 years and 6 months as Head of Department from 31.12.2007. As such, he has rendered three numbers of funded projects, three numbers of students have undergone Ph.D under his guidance as major advisor, he has also guided 14 numbers of PG students as major advisor and he has 31 numbers of publications with international impact factor. The cumulative effect of above bio-data would indicate that the petitioner had better career, as he got research publications, which had been published in international journals. 2.2. On 04.08.2018, the Principal Secretary to Chancellor issued a letter to the Vice Chancellor, OUAT, Bhubaneswar stating the requisite qualification, career records, international publications and administrative proficiency for the appointment of Dean of the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. For appointment of interim Dean in the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar, the Registrar forwarded a list of Professors and Professors designated under CAS as per seniority, where the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.3, whereas the name of opposite party no.5 found place at serial no.8. For appointment of interim Dean in the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar, the Registrar forwarded a list of Professors and Professors designated under CAS as per seniority, where the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.3, whereas the name of opposite party no.5 found place at serial no.8. As the incumbent against serial no.1 of the said list was going to retire in next six months and the incumbent against serial no.2 had already been superannuated since 31.01.2019, the petitioner, whose name was found place at serial no.3, being the senior most person, should have been extended with the benefit of appointment as interim Dean or regular Dean, instead of appointing the opposite party no.5 as interim Dean w.e.f. 07.03.2019 vide Annexure-6 and he assumed the charge of interim Dean w.e.f. 07.03.2019 vide notification issued by himself on 08.03.2019 under Annexure-7. 2.3 When the petitioner enquired into, it came to light that as he had remained unauthorized absent for the period from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation of gross misconduct, willful absent from duty and disobedience of the order, and that in the said proceeding, vide order dated 28.05.2003, it was directed that the period of unauthorized absent from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003 would be treated as leave without pay and would not be counted towards his pensionary benefit nor towards seniority. But, however, subsequently, vide resolution dated 26.11.2005 of the Board of Management, OUAT, the absent period was treated as leave as due and admissible and he was warned for having remained absent from the University without prior permission, as has been recorded in his service book on 29.12.2005. Therefore, even though he was senior to opposite party no.5, because of the punishment imposed on him, he was neither given the post of interim Dean nor steps were taken for his appointment as regular Dean. However, subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Professor on 31.12.2007 on CAS, after remaining eight years as Associate Professor w.e.f. 31.12.1999. 2.4 The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action taken by the University in appointing opposite party no.5 as interim Dean, pursuant to letter dated 07.03.2019 in Annexure-6, and consequential joining of opposite party no.5 on 08.03.2019 vide Annexure-7, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2019. 2.4 The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action taken by the University in appointing opposite party no.5 as interim Dean, pursuant to letter dated 07.03.2019 in Annexure-6, and consequential joining of opposite party no.5 on 08.03.2019 vide Annexure-7, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2019. When the matter was subjudice before this Court for adjudication, a circular was issued on 11.06.2019 inviting applications from amongst the Professors and persons of equivalent rank of the University for the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar specifying that the candidates should furnish, "holding of administrative post with the supporting documents" so as to consider them for the post of Dean, which has been impugned in W.P.(C) No. 10625 of 2019 as Annexure-8. 3. Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner has got international fellowship and prosecuted his study to acquire higher qualification for the period from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003, the OUAT should not have initiated proceeding against him. In any case, even though the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in view of explanation offered by the Board of Management vide resolution dated 26.11.2005, the period of absence was treated as leave as due and admissible and he was warned for the absence from the University without prior permission, and subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor on CAS on 31.12.2007. Therefore, the so-called warning to the petitioner cannot be construed to be a punishment for him. More so, the petitioner pursued his research at Cardiff University, on being awarded with prestigious Welcome Trust Travelling Research Fellowship (United Kingdom) through international competition in the year 2001, which brings reputation to the University. Therefore, the period of so-called unauthorized absence, during which the petitioner had prosecuted his study, should not have been considered for issuance of warning. In any case, issuance of warning without any addendum for specific period without repetition is not at all construed as punishment under service rule. It is further contended that for appointment of interim Dean though name of the petitioner was found place at Sl. In any case, issuance of warning without any addendum for specific period without repetition is not at all construed as punishment under service rule. It is further contended that for appointment of interim Dean though name of the petitioner was found place at Sl. No.3 and he was senior to opposite party no.5, his case has been ignored and the benefit has been given to opposite party no.5 to function as interim Dean, which is contrary to the provision of law. Thereby, in W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2019 he seeks to quash the order dated 07.03.2019 in Annexure-6 and consequential notification dated 08.03.2019 in Annexure-7, whereby opposite party no.5 assumed the charges of interim Dean. It is further contended that to fill up the post of regular Dean, a circular was issued on 11.06.2019 in Annexure-8 to W.P.(C) No.10625 of 2019, wherein it was stipulated that the candidate should furnish, "holding administrative posts with the supporting documents" to be eligible for the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, which is contrary to the provisions of the Statute. As such, the Statute does not require one should have got administrative experience to continue in the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar. Thereby, the authorities have acted with mala fide and in gross bias against the petitioner, and the entire endeavour has been made in putting the condition of furnishing "holding administrative posts with the supporting documents" in order to engage opposite party no.5 as regular Dean. Thereby, such action of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provision of law. Therefore, the said circular dated 11.06.2019 under Annexure-8 cannot sustain in the eye of law. More so, the essential requirements for the post of Dean have been provided under the Statute and if the petitioner otherwise satisfies such requirements, he should not have been debarred to be considered for appointment as Dean along with others. But, putting restriction with regard to administrative experience has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Thereby, such clause should be deleted from the circular. It is further contended that the statutory rules can be supplemented by circular, but cannot be supplanted. But, putting restriction with regard to administrative experience has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Thereby, such clause should be deleted from the circular. It is further contended that the statutory rules can be supplemented by circular, but cannot be supplanted. It is further contended that after exoneration from punishment by issuing warning and in view of subsequent promotion, the warning should be treated as condoned and subsequently cannot be considered as a ground for any disadvantage to the employee. If a case of bias and mala fide can be proved, then the order so passed cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1967) 2 LLJ 531 ; Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2000) AIR SC 3243 : 2008 SCC 395 ; and Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Chak, (2013) 6 SCC 287 . 4. Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that since it is an inter se service dispute between petitioner and OUAT, the State has nothing to do. As such, the State has not filed any counter affidavit. Thereby, it is contended that the dispute should be resolved between the petitioner and OUAT vis- -vis opposite party no.5. 5. Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.C. Rath, learned counsel for the OUAT vehemently contended that as per provisions of the Odisha University of Agriculture Technology Act, 1965, Chancellor is the appointing authority of Dean, Faculties which includes the Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. As per Statute 3.1 (i) of OUAT Statute, 1966, in order to deal with appointment of officers, teachers and other employees there shall be a standing selection committee. Deans of Faculties as officers are appointed by the Chancellor as provided in OUAT Act, 1965. Therefore, applications were invited from amongst the Professors of University or persons of equivalent rank having experience as such for minimum period of five years in the concerned faculty to be considered for appointment as Dean. Deans of Faculties as officers are appointed by the Chancellor as provided in OUAT Act, 1965. Therefore, applications were invited from amongst the Professors of University or persons of equivalent rank having experience as such for minimum period of five years in the concerned faculty to be considered for appointment as Dean. The standing selection committee was convened for selection of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry on 15.07.2018 and the panel consisting of the name of the candidates recommended by the Standing Selection Committee was intimated to the Chancellor's office by the Vice-Chancellor but appointment was not given from the panel due to some unavoidable reason by the Chancellor and Chancellor appointed Dr. Pravat Kumar Roul, Dean, Extension Education as in-charge Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, who belonged to Faculty of Agriculture. Therefore, for better administration of the Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, the Additional Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 27.12.2018 intimated order of the Chancellor that the Chancellor was pleased to defer the selection of regular Dean, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry till joining of new Vice-Chancellor and further instructed in the said letter that the Chancellor desired to furnish a panel of 3-4 Professors of the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry along with their credentials, for kind consideration of the Chancellor to appoint one among them as interim Dean of College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry till a regular Dean of the College is appointed by the Chancellor. In response to the said letter, the names of 26 Professors were recommended, wherein the name of the petitioner was found place at Sl. No.3 and the name of opposite party no.5 was found place at Serial No.8. Admittedly, opposite party no.5 is junior to the petitioner. But on the plea of imposition of penalty in the form of warning following a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for unauthorized absence without prior permission, opposite party no.5, who was Professor and HoD of Livestock Production and Management, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, was appointed as in-charge of interim Dean, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019 in Annexure-6 to W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2019. The process for appointment of regular Dean in College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry had already been started and applications had been invited from the eligible Professors vide circular dated 11.06.2019 with the last date of application as 10.07.2019. Regarding claim of the petitioner that he is senior to opposite party no.5, it is further contended that the appointment of interim Dean was made only by the Chancellor taking different aspects and not only the seniority, which was not a criteria. Therefore, it is contended that the selection of opposite party no.5 as interim Dean is well justified, pending final selection of regular Dean, for which the names had been recommended to the authority for selection. 6. Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 reiterated the contentions raised by Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University and also contended that the petitioner having faced disciplinary proceeding for unauthorized absence from duty for the period from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003 and subsequently, the said period was treated as leave as due and admissible and he was warned for having remained absent from the University without prior permission and, thereby, the petitioner had not been selected for appointment as interim Dean by the authority concerned, namely, the Chancellor of the University. Consequentially, there is no illegality or irregularity in appointing opposite party no.5 as interim Dean by the Chancellor. It is further contended that as per instruction of the Chancellor steps have already been taken for selection and appointment of regular Dean, pursuant to circular dated 11.06.2019 in Annexure-8 to W.P.(C) No.10625 of 2019. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in giving such appointment to opposite party no.5 as interim Dean, which is well justified. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Chakradhar Satpathy v. Chancellor, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, (1999) 1 OrissaLR 672. 7. This Court heard Mr. S.K. Nayak-1, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate for State; Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S. C. Rath, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2; and Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 by video conferencing mode. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate for State; Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S. C. Rath, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2; and Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 by video conferencing mode. Even though the State has not filed any counter affidavit, since pleadings between the petitioner and opposite parties no.1, 2 and 5 have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage admission. 8. On the basis of the pleadings available on record, as mentioned above, it is to be considered- (i) whether the petitioner can be denied to remain in charge of Dean because of warning given for unauthorized absence from duty as a measure of punishment? (ii) if the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Professor, as the shortcomings shown in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him had been condoned, can he be denied for such promotion by the authority? and (iii) whether putting of embargo of holding administrative post vide circular dated 11.06.2019 is in conformity with the provisions of law or not? 9. Issue no.(i) and (ii). The object of establishment of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology is to make provision for the education mainly of the rural people of the State of Orissa in agriculture and to promote research, field and extension programmes in agriculture and agricultural production. Therefore, to consolidate and amend the law relating other University of agriculture and technology in the State of Orissa, the State Legislature enacted an Act in Orissa Act 17 of 1965 called "The Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965". The University shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said name. The University shall consist of a Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Board of Management and an Academic Council. For just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, relevant provisions of the Act are extracted hereunder:- "2. The University shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said name. The University shall consist of a Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Board of Management and an Academic Council. For just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, relevant provisions of the Act are extracted hereunder:- "2. Definitions- in this Act, unless the context otherwise requiresxxx xxx xxx (5) "Faculty" means a Faculty of the University; xxx xxx xxx (8) "Prescribed" means prescribed by Statutes; (9) "Statutes" and "Regulations" means respectively the Statute and Regulations of the University made under this Act; (10) "teacher" means a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension educational programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher; (11) "University" means "The Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology" as constituted under this Act; xxx xxx xxx 33. Statutes.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) constitution, powers and duties or the authorities of the University; (b) election, appointment and continuance in office of the members of the authorities of the University including the continuance in office of the first members and filling in of vacancies and all other matters relating to these authorities for which it may be necessary to provide; (c) qualifications, mariner of appointment, powers and duties, salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the officers of the University; (d) designation, classification, manner of appointment, qualification, salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of teachers and other employees of the University; (e) constitution of a pension or provident fund and the establishment of an insurance scheme for the benefit of officers, teachers and other employees of the University; (f) institution of degrees and diplomas; (g) conferment of Honorary Degrees; (h) establishment, amalgamation, sub-division and abolition of Faculties; (i) establishment of Departments of teaching in the Faculties; (j) establishment and abolition of hostels maintained by the University; (k) institution of fellowships, scholarships, medals and prizes; (l) admission of students to the University and their enrolment and continuance as such; (m) courses of study to be laid down for all degrees and diplomas of the University; (n) conditions under which students shall be admitted to degree, diploma or other courses and to the examinations of the University and shall be eligible for the award of degrees and diplomas; (o) conditions of residence of the students of the University and the fees for residence in hostels maintained by the University; (p) recognition and management of hostels not maintained by the University; (q) fees which may be charged by the University for any purpose; (r) conditions subject to which persons may be recognised as qualified to give instructions in hostel; (s) conditions and mode of appointment and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators; (t) conduct of examination; (u) conditions for the award of fellowships scholarships, studentships bursaries, medals and prizes; (v) conduct of business of the various authorities of the University; and (w) all other matters which by this Act are to be or may be provided for by the Statutes. 34. 34. Manner of making Statutes.- (1) The first Statutes with regard to matters specified in clauses (a) to (k) of section 33 shall be made by the Government after being previously published in the Gazette for the consideration of objections, if any, as may be received from the public within a month of such publication. Subsequent amendments and alterations in respect of these items shall, subject to the approval of the Government, be made by the Board. (2) The first Statutes with regard to matters specified in clauses (l) to (w) of section 33 shall, subject to the approval of the Board and the Chancellor, be made by the Vice-Chancellor. The Academic Council may from time to time, propose draft of subsequent amendments and alterations of such Statutes, which would be considered by the Board at its next meeting. The Board may approve any such draft and amend or alter the Statutes accordingly or reject it or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration, either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which it may suggest. 10. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 34 of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965 read with clause- (a) to (k) of Section 33 thereof, the State Government made first statutes after the same having been provisionally published in the Orissa Gazette Extraordinary no.352, dated 4th April, 1996 called "Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Statutes, 1966". For just adjudication of the case, relevant provision of the statute is referred below:- "Clause-2(ff)- "Appointing authority" means the authority competent to appoint categories of persons as University employees, which include the Chancellor, the Board of Management, Vice-Chancellor, Dean of Faculties, Dean of Research, Dean of Extension Education, Registrar and other officers of the University, as mentioned in the Statute." 11. Chapter-Ii of Part-II deals with recruitment, election and other general provisions and officers of the university, their appointment, powers and duties. Statute-3(1) (i), (iii), 3(3)(iii) and (vi) read as under:- "3(1)(i) In order to deal with appointments of Officers, Teachers and other employees there shall be a standing selection committee. The Standing selection Committee for other employees shall have powers to co-opt two more members. Statute-3(1) (i), (iii), 3(3)(iii) and (vi) read as under:- "3(1)(i) In order to deal with appointments of Officers, Teachers and other employees there shall be a standing selection committee. The Standing selection Committee for other employees shall have powers to co-opt two more members. xxx xxx xxx (iii) The Standing Committee for appointment of other employees shall be composed of:- (a) The Vice-Chancellor as Chairman (b) The Registrar (c) The Comptroller For other employees in the University office And (a) The Vice-Chancellor as Chairman (b) The Dean, College of Agriculture (c) The Dean, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry for other employees in the constituent Colleges and Research Stations. xxx xxx xxx (3) The Board of Management, while taking steps for recruitment of Officers, Teachers and other employees, shall keep the following broad principles in view and shall take specific approval of Government regarding qualifications for Registrar, Comptroller, Deans and Director of Physical Plant before their recruitmentxxx xxx xxx (iii) The Dean of faculty shall be a person trained in one or more branches of Agriculture or allied sciences with a distinguished academic career and good reputation for his competence in teaching research and/or extension and academic administration. xxx xxx xxx (vi) The Dean of Extension Education shall be a person trained in one or more branches of Agriculture or Allied Sciences. Desirable qualifications will include Post-Graduate training in Extension Education and experience in Extension Field Programmes. He shall have good reputation for his competence in teaching, research or extension and in extension administration. He shall be responsible for planning and execution of programmes for extension work based upon the results of research and shall be able to shoulder the duties and responsibilities prescribed in the Act and the statutes." 12. Statute-7 deals with powers and duties of the Registrar, which reads as under:- "7. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Registrar shall have the following powers and duties, namely:- xxx xxx xxx (vi) Subject to the provisions of the Statutes, the Registrar shall make all correspondence relating to the University and be responsible for the proper maintenance of all the records of the University." 13. Statute-10 deals with Deans of Faculties, which reads as under:- "10. (1) The Dean of the Faculty shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the faculty and ExOfficio, Head of the Institution for institutional administration and responsible to the Vice-chancellor. Statute-10 deals with Deans of Faculties, which reads as under:- "10. (1) The Dean of the Faculty shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the faculty and ExOfficio, Head of the Institution for institutional administration and responsible to the Vice-chancellor. (2) Same in the case of Dean of Post Graduate Faculty, the Dean of Faculty shall be selected from amongst the professors of the university or the persons of equivalent rank having experience as such for a minimum period of five years in the concerned faculty and the qualification mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of Statute-3." 14. Chapter-Xvi deals with discipline, appeals and memorials, of which Statute-112 is extracted hereunder:- "112. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a University employees, namely:- i) fine; ii) censure; iii) withholding of increments or promotion; iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders; v) suspension; vi) reduction to a lower service, grade, or post or to a lower pay scale or to a lower stage in a pay scale; vii) compulsory retirement; viii) removal from service, which shall not disqualify for future employment under the University; ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily disqualify for future employment under the University." 15. In view of the provisions contained in the Act along with the Statute, as mentioned above, if the case in hand is to be considered, absence of the petitioner from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003 was due to his getting international fellowship to go for higher study like post research experience in Cardiff University on being awarded with prestigious Welcome Trust Travelling Research Fellowship (United Kingdom) through international competition in the year 2001. As he had applied for permission and leave admissible to carry out the time bound fellowship programme (Post Doctoral Research), in anticipation of granting permission, he obtained his VISA and air tickets, and accordingly joined in the foreign fellowship program on 21.04.2001. Even though he earned reputation for the institution, namely, OUAT, having received such qualification, but for alleged unauthorized absence, a proceeding was initiated against him, in which he was ultimately given warning on 29.12.2005 for the said period of absence. The issuance of warning without any addendum for specific period without repetition is not at all a punishment under service rule. The issuance of warning without any addendum for specific period without repetition is not at all a punishment under service rule. The warning for specific period i.e. fellowship period does not sustain for subsequent period, as the University authority with due honour to the recommendation of Board of Management and office order of OUAT dated 29.12.2005 offered promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor (CAS) on 31.12.2007. Even if any warning in the shape of punishment inflicted on him, the same cannot be taken into consideration, as because in view of subsequent promotion any shortcomings due to issuance of warning have merged with the same. Consequentially, non-consideration of his case for appointment as interim Dean or regular Dean cannot sustain in the eye of law. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner was remained absent from his duty for the period from 09.03.2001 to 16.02.2003 for prosecuting higher studies by getting international fellowship and for that matter a proceeding was initiated against him and ultimately the Board of Management treated the period of absence as leave as due and admissible and the petitioner was warned for remaining absent from the University without prior permission, pursuant to order dated 29.12.2005. On perusal of the provisions contained in Statue-112, it appears that "warning" has not been specified as one of the punishment, either minor or major. But fact remains, warning was given as consequence of initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and, as such, after the order of warning was passed, he was considered for promotion to the post of Professor as per CAS and was granted such benefit w.e.f. 31.12.2007. Therefore, the warning given to the petitioner has been condoned by giving him promotion to the post of Professor. Thereby, when the question of consideration of interim Dean came up, pursuant to the letter issued by the Principal Secretary to the Governor on 04.08.2018, the case of the petitioner should have been considered, as the so called warning had already been condoned by giving him promotion to the next higher post as Professor. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has been specifically mentioned that though his case had been taken into consideration for grant of benefit of interim Dean, because of the proceeding in which he was given warning, he had not been extended with the benefit. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has been specifically mentioned that though his case had been taken into consideration for grant of benefit of interim Dean, because of the proceeding in which he was given warning, he had not been extended with the benefit. Needless to say, by virtue of the conduct of the University, if warning had been condoned by giving him promotion to the post of Professor, after long lapse of 11 years, the benefit admissible to the petitioner, being a senior most Professor, cannot be denied on the plea of a proceeding initiated against him for alleged unauthorized absence during which period he had undergone higher study by receiving international fellowship from an international institution. 17. In Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh, mentioned supra, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under:- "In our judgment, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner must be given effect to. It is well settled that a master cannot impose any punishment on a servant for a misconduct which he has condoned. The subject of condonation has been discussed at length in a number of English cases (see Horton v. McMurtry,1860 2 LT 297 Phillips v Fosall,1872 7 QB 666; Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v. Ansell. 1888-89 ChD 339 at p. 858, Battie T. Parmmenter,1889 5 TLR 396; Federal Supply etc. v. Angehrn and Piel, 1910-80 LJPC 1, 8; London General Omnibus Co. Ltd v. Holloway 1912-2 KB 72; Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd.. 1915-1 KB 698 at p 706. The principle that merges from these cases has long been adopted in India, see L.W. Middleton v. H. Playfair;, (1925) AIR Calcutta 87 and District Council, Amraoti v. Vithal Vinayak Bapat, (1941) AIR Nagpur 125). In the Nagpur case, Bose, J. said- "Once a master has condoned any misconduct which would have justified dismissal Or a fine, he cannot, after such condonation, go back upon his election and claim a right to dismiss or to impose a fine or any other punishment in respect of the offence which has been condoned " 18. On perusal of Annexure-6 to the W.P.(C) No.7048 of 2019, it appears that opposite party no.5 was appointed as in-charge interim Dean of the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry of OUAT till a regular Dean is appointed. 19. On perusal of Annexure-6 to the W.P.(C) No.7048 of 2019, it appears that opposite party no.5 was appointed as in-charge interim Dean of the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry of OUAT till a regular Dean is appointed. 19. In Bank of Maharastra v. M.V. River Oghese, (1990) AIR Bombay 107, it has been held that the word "interim" when used as a noun means "intervening" and when used as an adjective, it means "temporary" or "provisional". 20. Therefore, such engagement of the opposite party no.5 as an interim Dean, pursuant to office order dated 07.03.2019, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, cannot sustain in the eye of law. Opposite party no.5 is junior to the petitioner, there is no dispute to that extent, in view of the comparative features available on record at paragraph-9 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, which reads as under:- 21. If the comparative statement will be taken into consideration, it is made clear that the petitioner is senior to opposite party no.5. Statute-10 specifically provides that the Dean of the Faculty shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Faculty and Ex-Officio, Head of the Institution for institutional administration and responsible to the Vice-Chancellor. Similarly, in the case of Dean of Post Graduate Faculty, the Dean of Faculty shall be selected from amongst the professors of the University or the persons of equivalent rank having experience as such for a minimum period of five years in the concerned faculty and the qualification mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of Statute-3. Sub-Clause-(iii) of clause-3 of Statute-3 provides that the Dean of faculty shall be a person trained in one or more branches of Agriculture or allied sciences with a distinguished academic career and good reputation for his competence in teaching research and/or extension and academic administration. 22. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he is continuing as Head of the Department from 2007, the day he became the Professor of the department and by this process he got experience of 11 years, so far as academic administration is concerned, and otherwise also he has got better teaching research qualification as per the statement mentioned above. Therefore, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner as interim Dean on the plea of unauthorized absence from the duty, which ultimately culminated into warning, cannot sustain in the eye of law, particularly when he has been given promotion to the post of Professor. Thereby, the shortcomings of the petitioner have been condoned by the authority by giving him promotion to the higher post. For all these reasons, issues no.(i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the petitioner. 23. Issue No.(iii): During pendency of W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2019 before this Court, the opposite party-University issued a circular on 11.06.2019 inviting applications from amongst the Professors and persons equivalent rank of the University for the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar in the prescribed application form, information sheet containing the details of qualification and other required conditions in respect of the above posts. However, it has been stipulated therein that the candidates should furnish, holding administrative post with the supporting documents. By putting a condition "holding of administrative post", it excludes all of the Professors except opposite party no.5. Thereby, it can be safely inferred that with a mala fide intention and biasness, such a circular has been issued keeping in mind to extend the benefit only to opposite party no.5, though the statute does not prescribe for holding of administrative post as a condition precedent in order to qualify to became a Dean, rather sub-clause-(iii) of clause-3 of Statute-3 provides that the Dean of faculty shall be a person trained in one or more branches of Agriculture or allied sciences with a distinguished academic career and good reputation for his competence in teaching research and/or extension and academic administration. Opposite party no.5 has already held the post of Dean, Students Welfare for 3 years and then in-charge Dean PGF-cum-DRI and also incharge Dean of Research, for which qualification has been prescribed under sub-clause-(iv) and (v) of clause-3 of Statute-3. But so far as Dean is concerned, it is only confined to sub-clause-(iii) of clause-3 of Statute-3. Therefore, by putting the condition of holding administrative post, the authority had aimed at qualifying a single person, who is none else but opposite party no.5, as because the other professors those who applied would automatically be debarred. This by itself indicates mala fide and bias action on the part of the authority concerned. 24. Therefore, by putting the condition of holding administrative post, the authority had aimed at qualifying a single person, who is none else but opposite party no.5, as because the other professors those who applied would automatically be debarred. This by itself indicates mala fide and bias action on the part of the authority concerned. 24. In Badrinath (supra), the apex Court in paragraphs-48, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 65 of the judgment observed as follows:- "48. Every officer has a right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 to a higher post subject to eligibility, provided he is within the zone of consideration. But the question is as to the manner in which his case is to be considered. This aspect is a matter of considerable importance in service jurisprudence as it deals with "fairness" in the matter of consideration for promotion under Article 16. We shall therefore refer to the current legal position. xxx xxx xxx 59. From the above judgments, the following principles can be summarised: (1) Under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be "considered" for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere "consideration" for promotion that is important but the "consideration" must be "fair" according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. (2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fides. (3) Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can be taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while passing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness. (4) If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate to remarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or so on, then those remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time, particularly if there are no such remarks during the period before his promotion. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement. (5) If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether. (6) Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied upon even if no opportunity was given to represent against them before an order of compulsory retirement is passed. 60. On the basis of the above principles, we have to consider whether the Joint Screening Committee applied the correct legal principles of "fairness". We have also to apply Wednesbury rule and consider whether relevant facts were not considered and irrelevant facts were considered. 61. In our view, the Committee has not conformed to the standards set in Baikuntha Nath Das case [ (1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] as to the manner in which old adverse remarks have to be treated and also as to the manner in which adverse remarks before a previous promotion on merit, should be viewed. The question also is whether trivial matters were exaggerated and positive material in favour of the officer was ignored. We shall now proceed with our reasons as to why the consideration by the Committee which met on 30-8-1979 is not fair and why it is liable to be set aside on Wednesbury principles. xxx xxx xxx 64. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held on merits that the assessment done by the Joint Screening Committee on 30-8-1979 and its acceptance by the State and the Central Government were illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside even within the narrow limits of Wednesbury principles. xxx xxx xxx 64. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held on merits that the assessment done by the Joint Screening Committee on 30-8-1979 and its acceptance by the State and the Central Government were illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside even within the narrow limits of Wednesbury principles. Inadmissible material was relied upon, a censure which was issued on a charge dropped was relied upon, adverse remarks which were liable to be expunged soon after the Governor's Orders on 28-6-1977 were continued and relied on 30-8-1979 and were expunged only in 1980, undue weight was given to old remarks by deliberately digging them up and even to those before his selection grade promotion even though they had lost their sting, due weight was not given to some very good work done by him which was even commended by the Supreme Court and which resulted on beneficial administrative action. The assessment does not answer the test of "fair" consideration under Article 16 for promotion. It must accordingly be quashed applying Wednesbury principles. We direct accordingly. Points 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the appellant. 65. These points raise questions relating to bias and the doctrine of necessity in administrative law and the plea of mala fides against Respondents 3 and 4." 25. In Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, mentioned supra, the apex Court held that statutory rules can be supplemented by a circular, but cannot be supplanted. Therefore, applying the same to the present context, if sub-clause-(iii) of clause-3 of Statute-3 specified a specific condition with regard to eligibility criteria for selection of Dean, issuing a circular on 11.06.2019 in Annexure-8 to W.P.(C) No.10625 of 2019 by putting a condition of holding administrative post, cannot be supplanted. Certainly, circulars can be issued to supplement the statutory rules, but not to supplant the same. Thereby, the aforementioned circular issued on 11.06.2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law to the extent that the candidates should furnish, holding of administrative posts with supporting documents. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that supplanting the words "holding of administrative post" vide circular dated 11.06.2019 is contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, issue no.(iii) is answered in favour of the petitioner. 26. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that supplanting the words "holding of administrative post" vide circular dated 11.06.2019 is contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, issue no.(iii) is answered in favour of the petitioner. 26. In view of the settled position of law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that appointment of opposite party no.5 as in-charge interim Dean, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, pursuant to office order dated 07.03.2019 under Annexure-6, and his consequential joining on 08.03.2019 under Annexure-7 to the W.P.(C) No.7084 of 2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Consequentially, the circular dated 11.06.2019 under Annexure-8 to the W.P.(C) No.10625 of 2019 for recruitment of regular Dean by putting a condition that the candidates should furnish, holding administrative posts with supporting documents also cannot sustain. Thereby, the same are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The opposite party-University is directed to issue a fresh advertisement to fill up the post of regular Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, OUAT, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore and in conformity with statutory provisions governing the field. 27. The writ petitions are thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.