The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of appointment should be the criterion for determining seniority, as per the provisions of S.10(24) and the applicable statutes and rules.

K.A. Nayar, J.

A provision in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, viz. S.10(24) providing that the Senior most Professor in the University shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice Chancellor led to a conflicting claim for seniority requiring determination in this writ appeal. The appellant, who is the Professor and Head of the School of Gandhian Studies and Peace Science, Mahatma Gandhi University, joined the Service as Professor on 31-10-1986 and the first respondent in the writ appeal joined as Professor and head of the School of Pure and Applied Physics, Mahatma Gandhi University on 24-10-1986. The seniority was fixed originally by the University by Ext. P1 in which the first respondent was shown as No. land the appellant was shown as No. 2. On an appeal filed by the appellant, his claim for seniority was recognised by Ext. P4 and consequential order was issued as Ext. P5 fixing the seniority of the appellant over the first respondent. These orders, viz. Exts. P4 and P5 were successfully challenged by the first respondent in O.P. No. 8857/1990. The learned Single Judge declared that Ext: P1„ showing the first respondent as senior to the appellant, reflects the correct seniority. The appeal is against the said judgment.

2. The admitted facts are that the appellant, at a time when he was employed in the Karnataka University, was selected for appointment and that was approved by the Syndicate by resolution dated 3-10-1986; The appointment order dated 7-10-1986 was issued to him, on receipt of which he got himself relieved from the Karnataka university on 28-10-1986 and joined as Professor and Head, School of Gandhian Studies and Peace Science, Mahatma Gandhi University on 31-10-1986. The first respondent was selected for appointment and it was approved by the Syndicate on 22-10-1986. The appointment order dated 22-10-1986 was given to him pursuant to which he joined as Professor of Pure and Applied Physics in the University on 24-10-1986. Thus, the first respondent joined as Professor of Pure and Applied Physics on 24-10-1986 and the appellant joined as Professor of Gandhian Studies and Peace Science on 31-10-1986. Therefore, going by the date of joining and date of commencement of continuous service as Professor, the first respondent is senior to the appellant. It is on that basis Ext. P1 seniority list was published on 5-7-1989 showing the first respondent as senior to the appellant. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Chancellor and the Chancellor, by Ext. P4, ordered that the date of order of appointment should be the criterion for determining the seniority. The appointment order of the appellant is dated 7-10-1986 and that of the first respondent is dated 22-10-1986. The Chancellor took the view that S.99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act made all statutes and ordinance under the Kerala University Act, 1974 applicable to the Mahatma Gandhi University. Under Statute 10 Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977, the Kerala Service Rules and Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules were mutatis mutandis made applicable to the teachers of the University. This would mean, Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules also would apply and the said rule provides that seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service shall be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade. The date of appointment should be the criterion for determining the seniority. Thus by virtue of S.99(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act read with Statute 10 Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statute 1977 and in the light of the principle implied by Rule 27(c) Part II of the General Rules of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 the Chancellor took the view that the date of the appointment order should be the criterion f