( 1 ). This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division bench of the Allahabad High court, made on 4/10/1982 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 6976 of 1975.

( 2 ). The appellant had called for selection of teachers for History subject. The first respondent Ram Sajiwan Shukla had applied for and was selected. Admittedly,. he studied Ancient History as his subject. Therefore, when his selection as Lecturer was sought to be ratified the Vice-Chancellor by his proceedings dated 16/5/1975 disapproved his appointment on the ground that Ram Sajiwan Shukia was unqualified to teach the subject of History since his study was in Ancient History. The respondent had challenged the same in the writ petition. In the meanwhile, one Umesh Chandra Kanchanwas appointed as a Lecturer in History and he claimed the place of Ram Sajiwan Shukla. In view of the fact that the Vice-Chancellor had refused approval of the appointment of Ram Sajiwan Shukla, the High court had held that the Vice-Chancellor had rightly refused to grant approval of the selection of Ram Sajiwan Shukla as a Lecturer in History. We are informed that subsequently the Department of Ancient History was created and the first respondent has been teaching in the Department, while Umesh Chandra Kanchan has been teaching the History subject. Consequently, both the posts are continuing in the appellants college. We are informed that the post of Lecturer of Ancient History is a temporary post being continued on year-to-year basis. We are afraid that at this distance of time, it would be very difficult to give acceptance to the contention that the post is a temporary post. For well over 20 years, when the post is being continued, though on temporary basis, it acquired the status to be of a permanent nature. As a consequence, the respondent, namely. Ram Sajiwan Shukla in the Ancient History Department requires to be continued and the government would be at liberty to convert it as a permanent post.

( 3 ). The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

( 4 ). This appeal concerns two Lecturers, namely, Surendra Narain Saxena and Mithilesh Kumar Kantesh both being Lecturers in Hindi. The appellant had advertised for selection of the post of a Lecturer in Hindi. As per the procedure in vogue for appointment in an affiliated college, the advertisements calling application require to be made and the selection by duly constituted committee approved by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 26 (4 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act" ). In the advertisement published for recruitment, it is not in dispute that instead of publication of vacancy in three local newspapers publication was made only in two newspapers. Consequently, when appointment of S. N. Saxena was sought approval, the Vice-Chancellor under Section 26 (4 of the Act negated it. He challenged the order in the writ petition. In the meanwhile, when Thakur Das Vaidya, a teacher in service retired, Mithilesh Kumar came to be appointed. Approval of his appointment was also sought for and the Vice-Chancellor turned it down on the ground that he had not possessed the minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher and, therefore, the recommendation by the appellant-Management was bad in law. Since the High court set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor and directed regularisation of the service of S. N. Saxena, the appellant has come in appeal to this court. Pending proceedings, a direction was obtained, on account of the dearth of a qualified teacher to impart education in the subject, permission to reinstate Surendra Narain Saxena who was, in the meanwhile, terminated. As a consequence, he was reinstated and he has been continuing in service. It is true, as rightly pointed out by the High court, that the advertisement required to be made with a view to inform all the candidates who wish to apply for and seek selection to the post to which the candidate is qualified to apply for and seek s