Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) PETITIONER 's case is that he should be appointed on substantive post as under newly amended Section 31(3)(c) of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Such amended Section says as follows: In Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, in Sub -section (3) for Clause (c) the following clause shall be substituted namely - (c) Any teacher of the University who was appointed as lecturer/part time lecturer on or before December 31, 1997 without reference to the Selection Committee by way of a short term or part time arrangement in accordance with the provisions for the time being in force for such appointment may be given substantive appointment by the Executive Counsel, if any, substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available if such teacher: (i) is serving as such on December 31, 1997 continuously since such dated appointment by way of short term/part time arrangement, (ii) possessed the qualification required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant Statutes in force on the date of the substantive appointment, (iii) has been found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive Council. A teacher appointed by way of short term/part time arrangement as aforesaid who does not get a substantive appointment under this clause shall cease to hold such post on such date as the Executive Council may specify.
(2.) FROM the above -amended Section it appears that two conditions are necessary to be considered, first as to whether he was appointed as part time lecturer on or before 31 December 1997 and secondly as to whether he has been found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive Council. The petitioner's case is that 11 candidates have already been considered by the Executive Council for regular appointment, who are according to him, are similarly placed but in spite of making several representations, his case has not been considered by the Executive Council. According to us, Executive Council is a body and not an individual person so the selection process made by the Executive Council in any event, should not normally be interfered with by the Court.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner by annexing the candidatures of the 11 candidates. The petitioner wants to get regularization on the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. One of the candidates, Dr. (Smt.) Madhu Satya Dev has been considered for regularization. She was the Research Associate from the period 11.01.1992 to 11.01.2000. The petitioner contended that he has working experience and his candidature is supported by two documents, being Annexures -3 and 4 to the writ petition, issued by the Head of Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages and the Registrar of the respondents -University.;