M.L. Bhatt, J. - (1.) A very short controversy arises in these two writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are filed against the order of the Vice Chancellor, Agra University, conveyed by the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 2 to the concerned. By this order the resolution of the Managing Committee was turned down by the Vice Chancellor on the ground that there was a difference of opinion between the members of the Selection Committee and expert and the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as Principal on adhoc basis. In both the writ petitions one and the same order is challenged. Therefore, it is better to dispose of these two petitions by one order. One Dr. Manga Ram has also filed an application for being heard in the writ petition and he also wanted action to be taken against Dr. D.K. Gupta, petitioner in writ petition No. 14473 of 1988 for his alleged forgery in the certificates submitted by him. When the writ petitions came up for admission the impugned order dated 15 -6 -1988 was stayed on 23 -6 -1988 in writ petition No. 11012 of 1988." The Vice Chancellor has refused approval to the recommendations of the Managing Committee. By staying that order the petitioner. Dr. D.K. Gupta, continues to be the Principal of Sri Varshney Degree College, Aligarh on adhoc basis. Mr. V.C. Misra appearing for the petitioner, Dr. D.K. Gupta, submitted that under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act of 1980 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1980) no approval of the Vice Chancellor is required for making adhoc appointment. This is controverted by the other side. It was stated that under the U.P. State Universities Act of 1973 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1973') approval of the Vice Chancellor is necessary for adhoc appointment also. The Act of 1980 has an over -riding effect over other Acts. Section 30 of the Act of 1980 says that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder. Therefore validity of a teacher on adhoc basis is to be tested on the touch -stone of provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1980 only.
(2.) SECTION 16 empowers the Managing Committee to appoint a teacher purely on adhoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefore, if the vacancy has been notified to the Commission and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates within three months from the date of notification. The appointment made under Section 16 on adhoc basis is a stop -gap arrangement only to last till the Commission makes regular appointment after conducting selection as prescribed under law. Therefore, for appointment of a teacher on adhoc basis one cannot take recourse to the provisions of the State Universities Act of 1973. This is so because the Act of 1980 by virtue of Section 30 of the Act is having over -riding effect over the provisions of the Act of 1973 and over any other law. Under section 160 of the Act of 1980 the Vice Chancellor cannot turn down a resolution of the Managing Committee making appointment of a teacher on adhoc basis. If the resolution is sent to the Vice Chancellor, he has to accept the resolution but he cannot turn down the resolution. The qualification of petitioner Dr. D.K. Gupta is disputed in other petition, which is petition No. 18037 of 1988. Therefore, it is not required in these petitions to say any thing about the petitioner having or not having the required qualification for holding the post of principal on adhoc basis. His appointment on adhoc basis is to continue under the interim order of the Court. The finding about his eligibility to hold the post to be given in detail in writ petition No. 18037 of 1988. The disapproval of the resolution by the Vice Chancellor is to be treated as non -est in these two writ petitions and that will not affect the petitioner's right to continue on adhoc basis till a regular selection is made and until a candidate selected by the Commission is appointed on the post of Principal.
(3.) THE application filed by Mr. Baghel on behalf of Manga Ram for taking action against Dr. D.K. Gupta for his alleged forgery need not be considered because in these two writ petitions this court has not considered whether or not the petitioner has qualification under the Statute to hold the post. If so advised, Mr. Manga Ram may take recourse to law if he is under law permitted to take such recourse. The application as such is not maintainable in these writ petitions and is rejected. With these observations these two writ petitions are disposed of finally.;