M. L. JOSHI, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. S. Divakaran as Professor Structural Engineering, Dean Faculty of Engineering and his nomination to the Syndicate in the capacity of Dean and prays for quashing the same. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to be nominated to the Syndicate instead.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows:--

( 3 ) THE petitioner was authorised to exercise the powers of Dean of Faculty of law by the Vice Chancellors order dated 8-10-1974 till further orders. The petitioner alleges that this order did not meet the requirement of Statute 4 (1), and was rather made with malice and bias which the Vice Chancellor bore against him as he did not like to nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate. The petitioner further avers that under Statute 4 of the University Statutes (in brief statutes) two members were to be nominated from the Deans of Faculties by rotation in the order given in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The Vice chancellor nominated Professor Alliance, the Dean, Faculty of Commerce, on the Syndicate but did not nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate on the expiry of the term of the Dean of Faculty of Arts, Education, Social Science On october 28, 1974, although as per the order of rotation it was the turn of the dean of Faculty of Law to be nominated on the Syndicate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representation to Chancellor who by his letter dated 27th january, 1971, directed the Vice-Chancellor to appoint the petitioner as full-fledged Dean and further to nominate him as member of the Syndicate vide Ex. 2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Chancellor the petitioner was appointed as full-fledged Dean, Faculty of Law and also nominated on the syndicate. Later on the Syndicate was dissolved as a result of promulgation of the Jodhpur University (Second Amendment) Act, 1975, by which it was ordained that the members of the Syndicate functioning before the commencement of the Act shall cease to hold office. By the same Act Section 16 of the University Act was substituted whereby constitution and terms of the members of the Syndicate were laid down afresh. Accordingly the Vice-Chancellor reconstituted the Syndicate in the light of the provisions of the university (Second Amendment) Act of 1975. He again nominated professor alhance Dean, Faculty of Commerce, on the Syndicate but this time also he ignored the claim of the petitioner and nominated Dr. Divakaran Dean Faculty of Engineering on the Syndicate instead although it was the turn of the petitioner. It has been alleged that Dr. Divakaran did not possess requisite qualification as he was neither eligible for the post nor he was selected by a duly constituted selection committee for the reason that the experts on the selection committee were not experts in the subject. It has also been alleged that Dr. Divakaran could not have been appointed as Dean, Faculty of engineering as Professor Bhadada was senior to him.

( 4 ) THE petition has been opposed by the non-petitioners each of whom has filed a separate return. The University in its return has refuted the claim of the petitioner based on Statute 4 and has inter alia pleaded that the Statute 4 which was made in pursuance of original Section 16 stood impliedly repealed by the Jodhpur University Amendment Act of 1972 which substituted a new section 16 in place of the original section. The newly substituted section according to the University laid down an exhaustive Code in regard to the constitution, terms of office of its members and quorum in regard to the meetings of the Syndicate. The claim of the petitioner on the principle of rotation has also been controverted as the principle of rotation recognised under the Amendment Act of 1972 was done away with by the Jodh