IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11737 of 2008 Between: S.T. Viroji Rao, S/o. S. Ramoji Rao, R/o. Flat No. 302, Srichakra Apartments, House No. 10-5-39, Masab Tank, Hyderabad -28. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Venkateshwara Veterinary University, Administrative Office, Regional Library Building, Triupathi - 517 502, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 Dean of Veterinary Science, Sri Venkateswhwara Veterinary University, Administrative Office, Regional Library Building, Tirupathi - 517 502. 3 B. Ramesh Gupta, Professor Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary Science, Sri Venkateshwara Veterinary University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in issuing the proceedings No. 5053/Service.I/08 dated 03-6-2008 declaring the 3rd Respondent as the University Head of the Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding by superseding the proceedings dated 04-3-2008 whereby the petitioner was appointed to that office, as unreasonable, arbitrary, unconstitutional, illegal and violativ of Principles of Natural Justice and to issue a consequential direction to the 1st Respondent to continue the Petitioner as the University Head of the Department of Animal Genetic and Breeding in pursuance to the proceedings dated 04-3-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Scientist in the Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, the first respondent herein. The third respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor in the same Department. The first respondent issued a notification inviting applications for direct recruitment to one post of Principal Scientist, and one post of Professor, in the same Department. The petitioner and the third respondent applied for both the posts. Through separate orders, dated 23.08.2007, the University appointed the petitioner against the post of Principal Scientist, and the third respondent, against the post of Professor. On a representation made by the petitioner, the Registrar of the University issued memo, dated 04.03.2008, stating that the petitioner is senior to the third respondent in the cadre of Professor. On the basis of the same, the Vice Chancellor of the University appointed the petitioner as Head of the Department. The third respondent appears to have made a representation before the Board of Management claiming that he is senior to the petitioner. The Board passed a resolution, dated 17.05.2008, holding that the proceedings, dated 04.03.2008, issued by the Registrar, declaring the petitioner as senior to the third respondent, are not correct. In addition to that, the Board declared the third respondent as Head of the Department. Consequently, proceedings were issued on 03.06.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that he was not put on notice before the impugned proceedings were issued and that the Board cannot meddle with the powers of the Vice Chancellor. Separate and detailed counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the one hand and the third respondent on the other. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Y.Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the third respondent. The whole controversy turned around the question of seniority between the petitioner and the third respondent. It is not in dispute that both of them were appointed on the same day. While the petitioner contends that the post of Principal Scientist is equivalent to Professor and the University has declared him as senior, the third respondent insists that the seniority in the previous post must be taken into account in view of the fact that both of them joined on the same day in the post of Principal Scientist and Professor, as the case may be. Certain other grounds are also urged. The record discloses that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned order was issued. Even if a different view was possible, the same could have been taken only after hearing the petitioner. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University Act, 2005, and the Rules made there under confer specific power upon the Vice Chancellor, to appoint the Head of the Department. Even where an order passed by the Vice Chancellor is not correct, the maximum that the Board can do is to set aside it and thereafter, leave the matter to the Vice Chancellor. Instead, the Board proceeded to declare the third respondent as Head of the Department. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set aside. All the learned counsel agree that the question of seniority which had a direct bearing upon the appointment of the Head of the Department also needs to be examined afresh, after considering the views of the affected parties. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the first respondent shall hear the petitioner and the third respondent, on the representation, dated 30.04.2006, made by the third respondent, and decide the question of inter se seniority between them, afresh. The continuance or otherwise of the petitioner as Head of the Department would depend upon the outcome of such an exercise, which, in turn, shall be completed, within four (4) weeks from today. Till then, the petitioner shall be continued as Head of the Department. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}