IMPORTANT POINT
Once it has been found that under the relevant statutes of the Gorakhpur University which were applicable, there was a provision for relaxation of any qualification and the power under the said provision had been exercised, which was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University, it was no more open to the Selection Committee constituted under Section 31-C of the U.P. Act 2 of 1991 to say there was no provision for relaxation.

JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.-Leave granted.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment of the High Court holding the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) as a Lecturer in Sanskrit in Sri Bajrang Maha Vidalaya, Dadar Ashram, Sikandarpur, as valid.

3. The institution aforesaid is a duly recognised Degree College and is affiliated to Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Earlier it was affiliated to Gorakhpur University. Its teachers and employees are being paid salaries through the State fund. A permanent vacancy arose on the retirement of Dr. Sudarshan Tripathi. It is said that a requisition was made to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission). Since no recommendation was made by the Commission for filling up the post, an advertisement was issued by the Management of the institution on 6.8.1985 for the post of the Lecturer in Sanskrit. Pursuant to the said advertisement, several persons including the respondent applied and they appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee found the respondent as the most suitable person and recommended his name to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued a letter of appointment to the respondent. The respondent joined the said institution. The appointmet of the respondent was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.1986. There is no dispute that since the date of appointment the respondent had been working as a Lecturer in the said institution. In the year 1991 the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 (U.P. Ordinance No. 43 of 1991) was promulgated which was later replaced by U.P. Act 2 of 1991. Section 31-C which was introduced by the Ordinance aforesaid provided that any teacher other than a Principal who was appointed on ad-hoc basis after 3.1.1984 but not later than 30.6.1991 on a post as specified in the said section which includes a post which has fallen vacant, then if the person who had been appointed on ad-hoc basis between the period aforesaid and who on the date of such commencement possessed the qualification required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad-hoc appointment, may be given substantive appointment by the management of the College. In the said section there is also a provision for a constitution of Selection Committee to consider the cases of such ad-hoc teachers. In view of the provisions aforesaid the case of the respondent was placed before the Selection Committee, but by an order dated 26.6.1992 issued by the Director of Education (Higher Education) respondent was informed that no substantive appointment was being given to him in terms of Section 31-C aforesaid and because of that it shall be deemed that the services of the respondent had been terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1992. This communication was challenged by the respondent before the High Court.

4. In the counter affidavit which was filed to the writ petition in question, a stand was taken on behalf of the respondents of that writ petition that the initial appointment of the respondent as an ad-hoc Lecturer in the College in question itself was illegal because the respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as the Lecturer. In this connection, reliance was placed on the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act 1980 which prescribed the conditions for the appointment of a Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on recommendation of the Selection Committee by the management of the College.

5. The High Court in the impugned order has pointed out that when the respondent had been appointed on an ad-hoc basis on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, by the management of the College which had been approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.1986,