ORDER

This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad made on September 4, 1996 in MCWP No. 38618/94.

2. The admitted position is that for one permanent post of lecturer in Islamic studies in the Department of Islamic Studies of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh an advertisement was issued pursuant to which the writ petitioners 1, 3 and 4, Research Scholars in the same Department, together with the petitioner and another applied for selection. The Selection Committee constituted by the University conducted the selection and one Abdul Hameed Fazli, a temporary lecturer was selected and posted against the said vacancy on May 19, 1994. The same Committee selected three more persons including the petitioner and kept them in the reserve list. When the temporary vacancy had arisen the petitioner came to be appointed in the said post.

3. The respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning the appointment of the petitioner and the very power of the Executive Committee and the Selection Committee to prepare the select list and keep a reserve list for appointment against vacancies without resorting to the selection as contemplated under Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act. The Division Bench of the High Court had held that the procedure adopted by the University in constituting a committee for recommendation under resolution Item No. 58 and recommendation of that Committee for preparing select list and keeping that list alive for filling up the vacancies arising due to retirement etc. are in violation of Section 29(2)(a) of the Act and that, therefore, the resolution and the action of the Executive Council were ultra vires the power. Thus, this special leave petition.

4. Shri Bimal Roy Jad, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. Section 29(2) does not prohibit preparation of a reserve list for appointment to meet the contingency of filling up the vacancies that would fall due to permanent incumbent s going on deputation or on his retirement etc.; the selection process would be a tardious process taking long period for selection of the candidates and if the vacancies are kept unfilled, the student community would stand to lose their classes. With a view to avoid such contingency, the Executive Council had resolved to recommend the procedure to be followed as policy pursuant to which it was resolved to prepare a reserve select list of candidates to fill up the vacancies that would have arisen. Since a vacancy had arisen in the Department of Islamic Studies, temporary appointment of the petitioner came to be made. This procedure is being followed even after the judgment of the High Court; as per the office proceedings of the University dated September 21, 1996, temporary appointments came to be made to several Departments and, therefore, the view is not correct in law. In support thereof, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Dr. Uma Kant & Anr. v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors.1

5. The question is whether the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law? Section 29 of the Act reads as under :

"29. Terms and conditions of service of teachers.-(1) All the teachers of the University or any of its Institutions shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be governed by the terms and conditions of service as specified in the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University :

Provided that no alteration in the salary, the rate of contribution to the Provident Fund and the age of superannuation of a teacher in the service of the University shall be made to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Visitor.

(2) (a) All appointments to permanent posts of teachers in the University shall be made by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of these Statutes after such posts