JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:- These four appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 3363 and 3364 of 1981.

2. Civil Appeal No. 3507 of 1989 is filed by Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, original respondent No. 7 in W. P. No. 3363/81. The relevant facts in W. P. 3363/81 are that the respondent University issued an advertisement in July 1980 inviting applications for the post of Chief Extension Education Officer along with 79 other posts. On receipt of the applications, the University. constituted a Selection Committee in compliance with the relevant statutes. The Selection Committee after considering the relevant merits of the candidates, on August 6, 1981 recommended the appellant to the said post. The Vice-Chancellor of the University accepted the recommendation and in exercise of the powers conferred on him, appointed the appellant by an Order of October 19, 1981. On October. 20, 1981 respondent No. 1 Dr. Mahajan preferred a writ petition before the High Court being W. P. No. 3363 of 1981 and obtained ad interim stay of the appointment of the appellant. On November 13, 1981, after hearing the University and the appellant, the High Court vacated the stay order, and the appellant took charge of the office on November 16, 1981. He completed. his probationary period of two years on November 15, 1983. The writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court in March 1987, and the High Court by its impugned decision of March 9, 1987 quashed the appellants appointment.

3. In Civil Appeal No. 3508 of 1989, the facts are that by the same advertisement of July 1980, the University had invited applications for the post of a Deputy Director, Central Farm. The Selection Committee constituted by the University recommended the appellant to the said post on 6/7th August, 1981, and the Vice-Chancellor issued an order appointing the appellant on October 19, 1981. The appellant took charge of the office on October 20, 1981. On the same day the respondent Dr. Shelke preferred a writ petition being W. P. No. 3364/81 before the High Court, and obtained an ad interim stay of the appellants appointment. After hearing the appellant and the University, the High. Court vacated the stay order on November 13, 198 1. The appellant cleared his probationary period of two years on October 19, 1983. Thereafter in March 1987 the High Court quashed the appellants appointment by the impugned common judgment. Hence these appeals.

4. The University has also preferred two separate appeals being Civil Appeals Nos. 3509 and 3510 of 1989 questioning the order of the High Court quashing the two appointments. All the four appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The High Court has given four reasons to set aside the appointment of the appellant in Appeal No. 3507/89 while two reasons (which are common to both) to set aside the appointment of appellant in Appeal No. 3508/89.

6. The first reason which is common to both the appeals is that although the vacancy in the posts in question had arisen as early as in 1975, no applications were invited to fill the same till 1980. The High Court has also stated that the University in its return, had not explained the said delay. We are at a loss to understand as to how the delay in filling a vacancy can be a ground for setting aside the appointment made. Assuming therefore that, there was no explanation given by the University, the appointments made were not liable to be set aside on that ground. If the delay in making an appointment is to be a ground for quashing it, no appointment can be made to the post after what the Court considers as the delay. This is apart from the fact that the University has in a detailed affidavit filed in this Court satisfactorily explained the circumstances in which the filling in of the post was delayed. That explanation is not countered.

7. The second ground given for setting aside the order of appointment of the appellant in CA No.3