By the Court.—Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the purpose of narration of facts, writ petition No. 28777 of 2007 has been taken as leading case.

2. The petitioners, who were holding the office of Head of Department in various disciplines in Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the University") have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2007 passed by the University, appointing some other teachers as Head of Department, replacing the petitioners, applying rotational system, pursuant to the Government Order dated 24.7.2001 and Executive Councils decision dated 23.8.2001.

3. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are, that, all the petitioners are senior most teachers/professors in various departments of the University as detailed below :

S.N Name Head of Department of

1. Prof. Smt. Kalawati Shukla Botany

2. Prof. Shiv Shankar Geography

3. Prof. Anirudh Prasad Law

4. Prof. Kaushal Kumar Zoology

5. Prof. Afganullah Khan Urdu

6. Prof. I.D. Mishra Political Science

7. Prof. M.M. Trivedi Philosophy

8. Prof. Banarasi Tripathi Sanskrit

9. Prof. A.A. Ansari Mathematics & Statistics

10. Prof. Manoj Kumar Fine Arts

4. The petitioners were working as Head of Department in accordance with Statute 2.20 of the First Statutes of Gorakhpur University, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes) which provides that seniormost teacher in each department of teaching in the University shall be Head of that Department. The State Government, however, issued an order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) providing that considering the demand of teachers of the University that Head of Department should be made on rotational basis, the Government has decided that Head of Department should be appointed on rotational basis for a period of three years and relevant statute of the University in the light of the decision of the Government be accordingly amended. The Executive Council of the University considered the above Government Order in its meeting dated 23.8.2001 and decided to amend the Statute 2.20 and to implement the decision of the State Government contained in the said Government Order by inserting Statute 2.20 (8) in the first statutes of the University and also to amend Statute 2.20 accordingly. It also decided to refer the matter to the State Government for approval of the amendment of the statute. It is not disputed that pursuant thereto no further action has been taken by the State Government and in fact statute 2.20 is still continuing as it was when the Government Order dated 24.7.2001 was issued and yet in the teeth of the provisions of the aforesaid statute the University has issued the impugned order dated 20.6.2007 removing petitioners from the office of the Head of Department of the University and appointing other teachers as Head of Department implementing rotational scheme as per G.O. dated 24.7.2001.

5. It is contended that so long the statute is not amended, the petitioners cannot be deprived of right of functioning as Head of Department being senior-most teachers in the concerned departments and action of the respondents, in particular, the University, in issuing the impugned order is patently illegal and without jurisdiction being contrary to the statute. It is also contended that Government Order dated 24.7.2001 as also the decision of the University would not have the effect of amending the statute automatically. So long the statute, in fact, is not amended as per the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the petitioners cannot be denuded of their right to function as Head of Department of concerned department as per Statute 2.20.

6.