It is not inter-discipline conflict that has brought a professor of school of Pure and Applied Physics and a professor of Gandhi an Studies and Peace Science, arrayed on opposite sides before this Court. A unique provision in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act - unique in the sense such a provision is absent in the Acts establishing the other four Universities in the State - 5.10(24), is, according to learned counsel representing the petitioner, the cause of the litigation. S.10(24) reads as follows:

"10(24): In the event of a temporary vacancy occurring in the office of the Vice-Chancellor. or where the Vice-Chancellor is temporarily absent, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shaSi exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor "and in the event of temporary vacancies occurring in the offices of the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or where the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor are temporarily absent, the senior most professor in the University shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor".

When the University drew up a seniority list of professors, Ext.P1, the petitioner was

ranked above the 3rd respondent. On as appeal before the Chancellor the ranking was changed and petitioner was placed below the 3rd respondent. It is this order, Ext.P4, which is under challenge in this original petition.

"L The dispute to be resolved is whether it is the date of the order of appointment or the date of joining duty that is relevant for deciding! lie seniority between professors working in different departments of the University, The order of appointment of the 3rd respondent as professor in Gandhian Studies and Peace Science is dt.7-10-1986 whereas the order of appointment of the petitioner as professor in the Department of Pure and Applied Science is dt. 22-10-1986. When the petitioner joined the duty on 24-10-1986, the 3rd respondent joined duty only on 31-10-1986. Since the petitioner started his service under the University earlier than the 3rd respondent, the University treated him as senior to the 3rd respondent and ranked him above 3rd respondent in Ext.P1. The 3rd respondent, in his appeal before the Chancellor, contended and successfully too, that what is relevant is the date of the order of appointment and not the date of joining duty, relying on the provision contained in R.27(c) of K.S. and S.S.R.

3. In Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of Kerala University First Statutes (which was applicable to the Gandhiji University also, till the M.G. University First Statute 1991 came into force on 11-2-1991), the provisions contained in K.S. and S.S.R. are made applicable to the University Teachers. Statute 10 reads as follows:

"10. Applicability of certain Rules to University Teachers:--Subject to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and the Statutes issued thereunder, the Kerala Service Rules, the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Kerala Government Servant's Conduct Rules for the time being in force as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers of the University, with such modifications as the context may require and the expression "Government" in those Rules shall be construed as a reference to the "University"."

R.27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as follows:

"27(c). Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list."

4. The petitioner would contend that R.27(c) has no application to the present case for reason