JUDGMENT S. Sujatha, J. - This Intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5591/2021 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed quashing item No. 1 of the resolution [Annexure-T] of the appellant - University dated 16.01.2021 and the consequent relieving order dated 11.02.2021 [Annexure-V]. 2. The appellant-University established in the year 1958 was under the control of the Mysuru University. In the year 1964, the Agricultural College at Hebbal and Dharward and the Veterinary College at Hebbal were associated along with other Research Institutions of Karnataka State. On 17.01.2005, University of Agriculture and Veterinary Science was bifurcated and a separate University was established for the Veterinary Sciences as Karnataka Veterinary Animals and Fisheries Science University ['KVAFSU' for short] which came into effect as notified by the State Government on 17.01.2005. The Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science Universities Act, 2004 ['Act' for short] was enacted by the State Legislature. 3. The respondent No. 3 - Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biologicals ['Institute' for short] which was an Autonomous Institution, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, came to be transferred to the appellant - University. 4. The respondent No. 1, a Ph.D. and Masters Degree holder in Veterinary Science was appointed as Director in the Institute through selection by promotion from the cadre of Scientist-IV by an order dated 27.10.2014 [Annexure-N]. The respondent No. 1 has challenged the resolution of the Board of Management of University at item No. 1 of its 95th meeting held on 16.01.2021 [Annexure-T] by which the Board of Management of the University has placed the respondent No. 1 on independent charge of Director and the order dated 11.02.2021 [Annexure-V] passed by the University, the consequential communication, relieving the respondent No. 1 from the post of Director and placing on independent charge in the Writ Petition. Writ petition being allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.08.2021, the University has preferred this Writ Appeal. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - University submitted that KVAFSU came into force from 17.01.2005. The Institute was transferred to KVAFSU under Notification dated 13.01.2006 by the State Government with effect from 01.04.2006. Writ petition being allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.08.2021, the University has preferred this Writ Appeal. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - University submitted that KVAFSU came into force from 17.01.2005. The Institute was transferred to KVAFSU under Notification dated 13.01.2006 by the State Government with effect from 01.04.2006. The respondent No. 1 had submitted his consent dated 01.04.2006 under Section 8 of KVAFSU, to be an employee of the University. The statutes of KVAFSU received the assent of the Chancellor on 13.06.2009 and was published in the Official Gazette on 22.10.2009. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 27.10.2014 as Director through selection by promotion in terms of the C & R Rules of the University applicable at the relevant point of time. The respondent No. 1 has been holding the post of Director, Institute for a period of more than seven years i.e., from 27.10.2014 though under the Statutes of the University, the term of Director is only for a maximum period of four years. The respondent No. 1 having consented to become an employee of the University from 01.04.2006 and the statutes having been made applicable to the Institute from 09.11.2018, cannot now contend that his condition of service cannot be modified and should be as per C & R Rules of the Institute when he was appointed. The respondent No. 1 is continued in service even after attaining 60 years on 31.07.2020 and is enjoying the benefits of extension of retirement age to 62 years and UGC Pay-scale applicable under the Statutes. In such an event, no claim could be made under the C & R Rules of the Institute for continuing to function as the Director. The order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the claim of the first respondent in allowing him to carry on the functions as Director till superannuation runs contrary to the Statutes which are made applicable to the Institute. 6. Despite the tenure of the post of Director for a period of four years, the respondent No. 1 having already completed seven years in the said post is not only protracting his appointment as Director but also denying the other Scientists-IV from being considered for appointment to the said post. Thus, on these grounds learned Senior Counsel sought for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Thus, on these grounds learned Senior Counsel sought for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed to the Institute in the cadre of Scientist-I on 16.08.1988. C & R Rules of the Institute provides for appointment of Director of the Institute through selection by promotion for appointment of Director from the Cadre of Scientist-IV who has put in minimum period 3 years. The Director is appointed by promotion till his superannuation and it is not a tenure post under the C & R Rules. Post of Director is of a higher rank and borne in a higher pay-scale and is a separate cadre - Order of ranking in pay-scale of Rs. 13820-17220; Scientist-IV is in pay-scale of Rs. 10020-14960. Referring to Section 8 of the Act submitted that "from a specified date" means a date specified for the purpose of any provision of the Act. Section 8[4] of the Act protects the tenure of the respondent No. 1 until altered with his consent. Consent under Section 8[5] cannot be construed as consent under Section 8[4] of the Act. The petitioner having been appointed under the C & R Rules of the Institute, he is entitled to be governed by the conditions governing it at the time of appointment. Reference was made to Sections 10, 25, 52 and 53 of the Act as well. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellant - University had issued an internal notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Director through direct recruitment with a Note - selection by promotion from the cadre of Scientist-IV who have put in minimum of 3 years of service in the cadre to the post of Director of the Institute. A corrigendum dated 19.10.2013 came to be issued by the University to read "Direct Recruitment for Director Post" as appointment of Director through selection by promotion from the cadre of Scientist-IV who have put in minimum of 3 years of service in the cadre. The appointment would be through selection by promotion. The said internal notification was challenged in W.P. Nos. 47138-47140/2013 and the same came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court, holding that the internal notification is in accordance with the C & R Rules governing the Institute. The appointment would be through selection by promotion. The said internal notification was challenged in W.P. Nos. 47138-47140/2013 and the same came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court, holding that the internal notification is in accordance with the C & R Rules governing the Institute. Further, the University wrote to the State Government seeking clarification regarding the applicability of Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the post of Director. In the special meeting of the Board of Management of the University held on 15.03.2014, it was resolved to grant sixth CPC, UGC Pay-scale to the scientists in the Institute with immediate effect. State Government on 22.05.2014 clarified that the process must be as prescribed under the C & R Rules as notified in the internal notification. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was appointed through selection as per the terms of C & R Rules of the Institute. As per the clarification given by the Government of Karnataka vide letter dated 07.12.2020, the respondent No. 1 is entitled for UGC pay-scale and his retirement age shall be in accordance with UGC norms from that date. 9. It was further argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the W.P. No. 51166/2014 was filed by Dr. M.D. Venkatesha and Others calling in question appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Director of the Institute. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 22.10.2020. Even in the said Writ Petition proceedings, no assertion was made that the post of the Director is a tenure post and no stance was taken that the tenure of the respondent No. 1 was over. Referring to State Government clarification dated 07.12.2020, it was vehemently argued that service conditions of the Scientists in the Institute including age of retirement would be governed by UGC norms. That being the position, the Board of Management in its 95th meeting resolved to place the respondent No. 1 on an independent charge of Director of the Institute relying on an undisclosed KVAFSU guidelines. Any such order passed against the respondent No. 1 without notifying him is against the principles of natural justice. In service jurisprudence, promotion can be to a higher post, grade or rank. An authority in independent charge cannot perform statutory duties, in placing the respondent No. 1 in in-charge position amounts to reduction in rank which is arbitrary and is untenable. In service jurisprudence, promotion can be to a higher post, grade or rank. An authority in independent charge cannot perform statutory duties, in placing the respondent No. 1 in in-charge position amounts to reduction in rank which is arbitrary and is untenable. Learned Single Judge having extensively examined the issue, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 quashing the impugned resolution and the consequential order. Even considering the tenure of the respondent No. 1 now being very short as he is due for retirement on 31.07.2022, no interference could be made with the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions: 1. S.S. Bola and Others V/s. B.D. Sardana and Others [ (1997) 8 SCC 522 ] 2. State of Rajasthan V/s. Fateh Chand Soni [ (1996) 1 SCC 562 ] 3. Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University V/s. Dayanand Jha [ (1986) 3 SCC 7 ] 4. J.S. Yadav V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [ (2011) 6 SCC 570 ] 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to continue in the post of Director of the University till his superannuation in terms of the C & R Rules governing the Institute or Whether the tenure prescribed by the statutes for the post of Director is applicable to the case on hand? 2. Whether the resolution of the Board of Management of the University insofar as its decision to place the respondent No. 1 on independent charge of Director, Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biologicals in its meeting held on 16.01.2021 and the consequential order passed by the University are justifiable? Since both the points are interlinked, the same are considered together and analyzed as under: 12. The main controversy now revolves around the issue inasmuch as the applicability of the statutes to the post of Director held by the respondent No. 1. Since both the points are interlinked, the same are considered together and analyzed as under: 12. The main controversy now revolves around the issue inasmuch as the applicability of the statutes to the post of Director held by the respondent No. 1. The undisputed facts are that on 16.08.1998 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Scientist-I in the Institute which was an autonomous Institute registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and was under the Control of State Government. As per the C & R rules governing the Institute, the date of retirement/superannuation was sixty years. KVAFSU was came into force from 17.01.2005. The Institute was transferred to KVAFSU under notification dated 13.01.2006 by the State Government with effect from 01.04.2006. The respondent No. 1 has given the consent letter dated 01.04.2006 which reads thus: "I Dr/Sri/Smt. S.M. BYRE GOWDA Working as Scientist-3 at IAHVUB, Hebbal, Bangalore hereby accord my consent to be an employee of the newly established Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar w.e.f. 1st April 2006 as per the provisions made under Section-8[5] of the KVAFSU Act-2004." 13. The 1st statutes of the KVAFSU received the assent of the Chancellor on 13.06.2009 and was published in the Official Gazette on 22.10.2009. The statutes have been made applicable to the Institute from 09.11.2018 as per Annexure-R2. It was specifically mentioned in the said order, that the Director shall exercise the powers and functions set out in Section 22 of the Statute, 2009. Hence, no ground taken to this effect, in the earlier writ proceedings is not fatal to the case. 14. [22][1] of the Statutes stipulates that the term of office of Director of Institute shall be for a period of four years. Under the C & R Rules governing the Institute, appointment of the Director is through selection by promotion from the cadre of Scientist-IV. The State Government vide Government order dated 16.12.2016 has extended the pay-scale and other benefits to the Scientists of the Institute with effect from 15.03.2014 as per Annexure-R1. In Annexure-1 appended to the said Government order, respondent No. 1's designation is shown as Scientist-IV. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 27.10.2014 [Annexure-N] through selection by promotion as Director of the Institute as per the Recommendation and the Selection Committee and approval of the Board of Management. In Annexure-1 appended to the said Government order, respondent No. 1's designation is shown as Scientist-IV. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 27.10.2014 [Annexure-N] through selection by promotion as Director of the Institute as per the Recommendation and the Selection Committee and approval of the Board of Management. The said order stipulates that all other terms and conditions prescribed under C & R Rules of the Institute will govern his appointment. In terms of the said C & R Rules, no tenure is fixed for post of Director appointed under selection by promotion. Sub-Section[1] of Section 8 of the Act provides for transfer of the Colleges and Institutions specified in the Schedule, all the properties and assets both movable and immovable owned and managed by the University. Sub-Section[4] of Section 8 provides for transfer of employees of the University. Sub-Section [5] makes it mandatory for obtaining consent for such transfer of the teaching staff or other employee working in the college or institutions specified in the Schedule. Sub-Section[1] and Sub-Section[4] refers to "the specified date". This expression "specified date" plays some significant role in the context of the present case. As per Annexure-R1 - Government Order dated 16.12.2016, the University has equalized the faculty posts of 24 Scientists and extended UGC pay scales and other relaxed benefits with effect from 15.03.2014, the respondent No. 1 is one among them. The consent letter dated 01.04.2006 referred to hereinabove, would indicate that the consent was given by the respondent No. 1 to be an employee of the newly established KVAFSU with effect from 01.04.2006 as per the provisions made under Section 8[5] of the Act. 15. In the case of S.S. Bola and Others supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating upon the constitutional validity of Haryana Act, 20 of 1995, the Act giving retrospective effect with effect from 01.11.1966 vis-à-vis the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in each of the services held that Section 25 of the said Act repeals the previous rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as well as repealed the Ordinance of 1995. It also saves the action taken in respect of matter enumerated in Clauses[a] to [d], the earlier rules would apply to the persons who were members of the service before 01.11.1966. It also saves the action taken in respect of matter enumerated in Clauses[a] to [d], the earlier rules would apply to the persons who were members of the service before 01.11.1966. The legislature having given retrospective effect to the said Act with effect from 01.11.1966, it has been observed that there is no rationale to apply the pre-existing rules to those employees who were members of the service before that date even after the pre-existing rule is being repealed by the Act. In that view of the matter, the expression "to the extent that these rules shall continue to apply to the persons who were members of the service before first day of 1966" is held to be invalid and accordingly has been struck down. Remaining part of the said provision has been held to be intra vires. 16. In the case of State of Rajasthan supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that promotion can only be to a higher post in the service and appointment through higher scale of an officer holding the same post does not constitute promotion. There is no dispute on the legal proposition that promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. In the background of the present case, age of superannuation plays a significant role. Admittedly, UGC pay-scale was extended to the respondent No. 1 by virtue of the order of KVAFSU dated 14.01.2019 implementing Sixth UGC Pay-scale to Scientists of the Institute with effect from March, 2014 [Annexure-R1A]. In terms of the clarification issued by the State Government, the retirement age of the Scientists also got extended to 62 years to whom UGC pay-scale has been extended. The respondent No. 1 drawing the UGC pay-scale with the extended period of retirement age to 62 years cannot claim that the C & R Rules governing the Institute would apply where the age of superannuation was 60 years. If the C & R Rules of the Institute are applicable, the date of superannuation of the respondent No. 1 would have been 31.07.2020 and the same will be 31.07.2022, if it is 62 years in terms of the statutes. Benefits cannot be claimed by the respondent No. 1 both under the C & R Rules as well as the statutes. Benefits cannot be claimed by the respondent No. 1 both under the C & R Rules as well as the statutes. Statutes having been made applicable to the Institute from 09.11.2018, Annexure-R2, it cannot be held that the condition of service of the respondent No. 1 cannot be modified and should be as per the C & R Rules of the Institute when he got appointed. Hence, the aforesaid judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. In the case of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University supra, the scope of equivalent posts - equivalence of posts has been dealt with. The post of Principal is not held to be equivalent to that of a Reader for the purposes of Section 10[14] of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended. In this regard, the criterion for equivalence has been laid down. There is no cavil on this legal proposition that the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts would be the main criteria. But, in the factual matrix of the case, the said judgment would not come to the aid of the respondent No. 1, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph. 18. It is true that placing the respondent No. 1 in independent charge for the post of Director would reduce the status and rank of the respondent No. 1 as observed by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on B.N. Dhotrad V/s. The Board of Directors, Appellate Authority and Others [ILR 2006 KAR 3163]. However, if the period of tenure is applied to the case on hand as per the statutes, in our considered view, keeping the respondent No. 1 in an independent charge cannot be faulted with. 19. In J.S. Yadav supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of the appellant therein joining as a member of the Commission under the 1993 Act wherein Section 26 of the said Act specifically provided that neither the salary and allowances nor other terms and conditions of the service of a member shall vary to his disadvantage after his appointment, held that the said amendment would apply prospectively. In that scenario, a reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.P. Agarwal [Dr.] V/s. Union of India [ (1992) 3 SCC 526 ] and State of U.P. V/s. Dr. In that scenario, a reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.P. Agarwal [Dr.] V/s. Union of India [ (1992) 3 SCC 526 ] and State of U.P. V/s. Dr. S.K. Sinha [ AIR 1995 SC 768 ]. It has been observed that an employee appointed for a fixed period under the statute is entitled to continue till expiry of the tenure and in such a case there can be no occasion to pass the order of superannuation for the reason that his tenure comes to an end automatically by efflux of time. 20. These judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would be of little assistance to the respondent in the background of the factual aspects narrated above, more particularly, when the appellant has been continued in service determining the age of superannuation as 62 which is applicable as per the statutes. There cannot be two yardsticks, one for determining the age of superannuation and the other for the tenure of the post of Director. If the age of superannuation is considered as 62, the tenure to the post of Director fixed under the statutes would apply. On the other hand if no tenure as per the C & R Rules of the Institute applies, the age of superannuation would be 60 years. The respondent No. 1 cannot cherry pick the factors which are advantageous to him regarding the applicability of C & R Rules. It has to be accepted in totality. Hence, in our considered view, the matter requires interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. Though the appellant has short tenure of five months, continuing the post of Director would certainly deny the entitlement of other Scientists who are entitled for the said post. Hence, on sympathetic view, continuing the respondent No. 1 as a Director may not be appropriate. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be found with item No. 1 of Annexure-T. But, the consequential order will be given effect from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following: ORDER i] Writ appeal is allowed. ii] The order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 5591/2021 dated 25.08.2021 is set aside. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 5591/2021 is dismissed. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following: ORDER i] Writ appeal is allowed. ii] The order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 5591/2021 dated 25.08.2021 is set aside. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 5591/2021 is dismissed. However, the action taken by the respondent No. 1 till date as the Director of the appellant-University is saved. iii] No order as to costs. iv] All the pending I. As stand disposed of accordingly.