ORDER : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1. On the request and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. By this common order, both the writ petitions are disposed of. 3. The writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20282/2024 was filed by Dr. Dhirender challenging the appointment order dated 26.02.2025, whereby Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar was appointed as Head of the Department of Zoology in the Jai Narayan Vyas University, and the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4126/2025 was filed by Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar challenging the order dated 31.01.2025, whereby Dr. Dhirender was appointed as Head of the Department of Zoology without revoking the order of appointment of Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar and without giving any notice to him. 4. For convenience, Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar is referred to as petitioner and Dr. Dhirender is referred to as private respondent, and the University is referred to as the respondent. 5. The facts disclosed that the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor by the initial appointment order dated 24.07.2008, and prior to his appointment, he was a Lecturer in Government college in the cadre post. The private respondent was working as Assistant Professor with the respondent on an ad-hoc basis prior to regularization of his services. The petitioner underwent the selection process before regularization and consequently, he was appointed on 24.07.2008. Though the joining time is different for both, the facts disclosed that the private respondent joined earlier in time and the petitioner joined later in time on the post of Assistant Professor. Admittedly, there was no seniority list, and it appears that the appointment of the private respondent was given w.e.f. the date of appointment; however, the private respondent moved a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008. The writ petitioner herein i.e. Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar, was not a party to the said writ petition (i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008), and the said writ petition was partly allowed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners’ past service for grant of benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) by counting their length of service from the date of initial appointment. Gemra Ram Parihar, was not a party to the said writ petition (i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008), and the said writ petition was partly allowed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners’ past service for grant of benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) by counting their length of service from the date of initial appointment. Meanwhile, it appears that there was a promotion undertaking for the post of Associate Professor and the said promotion requires a minimum experience of eight years in the cadre of Assistant Professor. By virtue of the directions given in writ petition No.78/2008, whereunder the petitioner’s (i.e. private respondent herein) past service was ordered to be counted for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the petitioner’s (i.e. private respondent herein) past service as an ad-hoc employee was counted to meet the eligibility criteria of Associate Professor; thereby, he was made eligible and was considered for promotion on 14.08.2008. The writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 16.09.2014. Subsequently, further promotion was given to both the parties to the post of Professor. The writ petitioner was promoted on 16.09.2017, whereas the private respondent was promoted on 11.07.2016, which is prior to the writ petitioner. 6. Referring to Section 8(1)(c) of the Statute of University which is part of the Schedule made under Section 22 of the Jai Narayan Vyas University Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1962”), it is contended that promotion to the post of Head of the Department is subject to rotation by seniority. The entire dispute revolves around the promotion to the post of Head of the Department of Zoology. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is by direct recruitment, whereas the private respondent’s appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is by regularizing of an ad hoc appointment and appointments were given to the petitioner as well as the private respondent on the same date. Though there are different dates of joining, the petitioner shall be given seniority prefrence over private respondent when the inter se seniority is drawn between the petitioner and the private respondent. 8. Though there are different dates of joining, the petitioner shall be given seniority prefrence over private respondent when the inter se seniority is drawn between the petitioner and the private respondent. 8. It is also his contention that the private respondent filed a writ petition seeking counting of past service for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), which was allowed, and the same was allowed behind the back of the petitioner; therefore, his grievance is that private respondent’s promotion to the post of Associate Professor and Professor which were given prior to the petitioner has to be ignored and the petitioner shall be treated as senior by counting the past service for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head of the Department. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent contends that as per the seniority existing in the cadre of Professor, the private respondent is senior to the petitioner, and he is also senior in the cadre of Assistant/Associate Professor. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner with regard to seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor cannot be considered at this stage, as such issue was never raised in the present writ petition and previously as well. 10. It is also his submission that earlier the appointment was given to the petitioner treating him as senior, ignoring the seniority in the cadre of Professor, the same was challenged and the said writ petition was pending. While such writ petition was pending, the respondents tried to rectify the mistake by passing the fresh order appointing the private respondent as Head of the Department. According to him, the appointment of the private respondent was made by rectifying the order of appointment of the petitioner for the post of Head of the Department. There was no need to give any opportunity of hearing and no need to revoke the order of appointment of the petitioner. 11. Having gone through the facts and contentions projected by learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties, the undisputed facts are that both the petitioner and the private respondent were appointed on the same date. The petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment and he was previously occupying the post of Lecturer in Government-run colleges. 11. Having gone through the facts and contentions projected by learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties, the undisputed facts are that both the petitioner and the private respondent were appointed on the same date. The petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment and he was previously occupying the post of Lecturer in Government-run colleges. The private respondent was initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Professor, and such appointment was against the existing cadre post, and his services were regularized and he was appointed on the same date on which the petitioner was appointed. This means that the petitioner’s appointment and the private respondent’s appointment are on the same date. 12. A close scrutiny of the appointment order of the private respondent shows that though his services were regularized, his appointment was given effect from the date of appointment and not with retrospective effect. The petitioner was also appointed on the same date. For fixation of inter se seniority among the petitioner and the private respondent, the rules are silent. The regularization of the private respondent resulted in lack of testing the merit between the private respondent and the petitioner. 13. The contention advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University is that the person appointed by direct recruitment has to be treated as senior over the person regularized when the appointments are on the same date. This argument is not supported by any statutory backing. 14. The private respondent filed the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008 after his appointment by seeking regularizing his past services and to count his seniority in the ad- hoc post for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner was not made a party so that the consequences of such an order could have been resisted by him. 15. The private respondent, basing on the directions of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008, had applied for the post of Associate Professor, which post requires a minimum working experience of eight years in the cadre of Assistant Professor. The promotion is the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Since the direction enabled the private respondent to count the past service for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the petitioner availed the benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and made himself eligible. The promotion is the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Since the direction enabled the private respondent to count the past service for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the petitioner availed the benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and made himself eligible. He was also promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 14.08.2008, though his services were regularized w.e.f. 24.07.2008, which is within a short span of time. 16. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 16.09.2014. This means that the private respondent had gained seniority of six years in the cadre of Associate Professor, as he was promoted to the said post in the year 2008 itself. Similarly, the private respondent was again promoted to the post of Professor on 11.07.2016, whereas the writ petitioner was promoted on 16.09.2017. These two orders of promotion were never under challenge at the instance of the affected parties, including the petitioner. For the promotion to the post of Head of the Department, Section 8(1)(c) of the Statute of University which is part of the Schedule made under Section 22 of the Jai Narayan Vyas University Act, 1962 prescribes the procedure. The said provision reads as follows: “ 8. (1) (a) xxxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxxx (c) Each Department shall have a Head who shall be appointed in the following order of preference: (1) (i) Professor in the subject by rotation by seniority. If a Professor who is Head of the Department under clause (1)(i) above goes on leave without pay/EOL, deputation or he goes on any type of leave for a period of not less than 1 month, the next senior most professor shall be appointed Head of the Department for such period as the person appointed under clause 1(i) is on leave. This period shall not count towards the term. (ii) In case there is no Professor or all Professors are on leave, Readers by rotation by seniority. If a Reader who is Head of Department under clause 1(ii) above goes on leave without pay/EOL, deputation or he goes on any type of leave for a period of not less than 1 month, the next senior most Reader shall be appointed Head of the Department for such period as the person appointed under clause 1(ii) is on leave. This period shall not count towards the term. This period shall not count towards the term. (iii) In case there is no Professor or Reader or all Professors and Readers are on leave, Lecturers by rotation by seniority. If a Lecturer who is Head of the Department under clause 1(iii) above goes on leave without pay/EOL, deputation or he goes on any type of leave for a period of not less than 1 month, the next senior-most Lecturer shall be appointed Head of the Department for such period as the persons appointed under clause 1(iii) is on leave. This period shall not count towards the term.” 17. A reading of the provision referred to hereinabove makes it clear that appointment by promotion to the post of Head of the Department in the relevant subject is by rotation by seniority. The note-sheet dated 20.02.2004 indicates that the private respondent was treated as senior, and the names of senior Professors are also detailed. The available seniors were: Dr. Vimla Shearon (Professor), Dr. Dhirender (Professor) and Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar (Professor). Dr. Vimla Shearon was ignored since she had already enjoyed the Headship by virtue of her seniority in the cadre of Professor. The next senior is the private respondent, and thereafter, the writ petitioner. 18. By going through the procedure under Section 8(1)(c) of the Act of 1962, the private respondent, who was shown as senior, was required to be considered for appointment, as is noted under the note-sheet which was prepared prior to the appointment to the post of Head of the Department. The appointment of petitioner appears to be not in terms of the note-sheet and Section 8(1)(c) of the Act of 1962. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner dated 26.02.2025 in the writ petition (i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20282/2024) is required to be set aside by allowing the writ petition. 19. The appointment of the private respondent by the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is also required to be interfered with on the sole ground that before the fresh appointment order was passed in favour of the private respondent, the appointment of the petitioner as Head of the Department was not revoked. The said order was still in operation. Further, two appointment orders cannot operate in respect of a single post, resulting in confusion. Apart from this, before the earlier order of appointment of the private respondent was passed, the petitioner was not heard. The said order was still in operation. Further, two appointment orders cannot operate in respect of a single post, resulting in confusion. Apart from this, before the earlier order of appointment of the private respondent was passed, the petitioner was not heard. It is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice; therefore, the appointment of the private respondent as Head of the Department by the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is required to be set aside, and consequently, the proceedings, if any, passed in consequence of the appointment of both the petitioner and the private respondent are required to be set aside. 20. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed , and the orders of appointment dated 31.01.2025 and 26.02.2025 and consequential proceedings of the private respondent and petitioner are set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to redraw and are directed to commence the selection process for filling the post of Head of the Department by duly taking into consideration the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the private respondent in the cadre of Professor, and to make the appointment in terms of Section 8(1)(c) of the Act of 1962. 21. The said exercise shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose of.