The petitioner is a teacher in Bio-chemistry in the School of Bio-sciences in the Mahatma Gandhi University. The third respondent is a teacher in the School of Chemical Sciences in that University. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 decision of the University, promoting the third respondent as Professor with effect from 20.11.1995 under the career advancement scheme of UGC and Ext.P13, which apparently evidences that the Vice Chancellor had decided not to interfere with Ext.P10 decision, on the ground that the promotion given to the third respondent is on the basis of recommendations of a duly constituted selection committee as per the UGC guidelines.

2. Before coming to the rival contentions touching the merits of the claim, it needs to be considered whether the claim of the petitioner could be treated as a competing claim to that of the third respondent and whether the petitioner has a right to challenge the promotion of the third respondent. The third respondent has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the promotion given to him as per Ext.P10. The locus of the petitioner is projected by stating that the date of entry into the post of Professor would be relevant to determine the entitlement to be appointed as Dean of Faculty and Head of Department, which, in turn, would be the criteria for being nominated as a member of the Syndicate of the University.

3. Section 21 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short, provides that three Deans of Faculties nominated by the Chancellor by rotation shall be among the “other members” of the Syndicate. Section 27(1) of the Act provides that there shall be a Dean of each Faculty, who shall be nominated by the Chancellor, by rotation from among the Heads of University Departments or Professors. This has to be done in consultation with the Vice Chancellor. The appointment of Dean is, therefore, a nomination and such nomination is for a term of two years going by Sub-section (3) of Section 27 and one who has been nominated as Dean would be eligible for re-nomination. The nomination, in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 27, has to be from among the Heads of University Departments or Professors. This means that the Heads of University Departments and all the Professors would be within the zone of availability for the Chancellor to make the nomination in consultation with the Vice Chancellor. The seniority between them is not statutorily relevant. Therefore, a competition on the basis of seniority is just not prescribed by the Statute.

4. A reading of Section 21 of the Act would show that no Dean of Faculty has a vested right to be nominated by the Chancellor as a member of the Syndicate. Equally, Section 27 also does not provide any vested right in any Head of Department of Professor for being nominated as the Dean, while they would be available for being considered for nomination. So much so, the petitioner does not have a right to challenge the impugned promotion of the third respondent.

5. On to the merits, the placement of the petitioner as Reader, retrospectively from 18.3.1991, as per Ext.P3 and as Professor, retrospectively from 30.7.1996, as per Ext.P4, as if he was entitled to be considered for appointment of Dr. B. Harikumar, the second respondent in O.P.No.3080/91, disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment, was considered by me yesterday in O.P.No.21749/03 filed by the 4th respondent and found against the interest of the petitioner herein. The retrospective placements given to the petitioner in the post of Reader and in the post of Professor have been found against. So much so, the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Professor with effect from 30.7.1996 does not hold good any more. Such placement could only be from 29.10.1999, the date of the Syndicate decision, by which, the petitioner was promoted as Professor under the merit promotion scheme.

6. The third respondent entered service a