R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE short but important question of law that arises for consideration in these petitions filed by two teachers of department of Ancient History of Allahabad University, is if a teacher appointed by the Vice- Chancellor in exercise of powers under section 13 (6) of State Universities Act is entitled to claim regularisation under section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. Although initially the principal thrust of the petition was directed against the office order issued in pursuance of Chancellor's order intimating the petitioner that their extension for six months stood cancelled but subsequently it was extended to include claim for regularisation which was seriously objected to by the learned counsel for University both for changing the nature and scope of the petition and maintainability of reference before Chancellor but the petitioners being victim of improper advice resulting in set back to their career should not any further be kept in dark about their status grounded on Section 31 (3) (b).
(2.) FOR the permanent and three temporary post of lecturers in department of Ancient History advertised in 1985 the statutory selection committee constituted under section 34 (a) of the Act interviewed candidates, including petitioners, and prepared four panels, two for permanent and two for temporary posts and recommended petitioners against temporary post but did not place them at serial no. 1 in either panel. And the recommended candidates who were above petitioners in the panel having joined, thus the panel stood exhausted. But the petitioners were appointed in December, 1986 by the Vice Chancellor under section 13 (6) in fresh temporary vacancies, may be, in pursuance of resolution of the Executive Council of the University of November, 1986 authorising the Vice Chancellor to make ad-hoc appointment from the panel. Purpose and effect of this resolution shall be adverted to latter. But before expiry of six months from the date of appointment the head of department in May, 1987 wrote to the Registrar that work and conduct of petitioners being very satisfactory their appointment may be extended till the meeting of statutory selection committee and consequential appointment. And in July,' 1987 the Vice-Chancellor probably agreed for their extension and passed orders as well but they were not issued, as appears from letter of the head of department sent in November, 1987 to the Registrar. When nothing happened and petitioners were not paid their salary, obviously because there was no order extending their service, although they were working, the head of department, wrote again in January, 1988 to the Vice Chancellor that he had passed the orders and file was handed over to the Registrar yet the orders were not issued, therefore, immediate action may be taken. In the meantime four posts of lecturers in the department fell vacant and advertisement inviting applications for those posts was issued in August, 1987. Since the letter of head of department sent in January, 1988 did not evoke any response, the petitioners represented before the Vice Chancellor that regular vacancies having arisen in August, 1987 the Registrar should be directed to pay them their salary since August, 1987. They also made representation to the Executive Council in same month namely, March 23, 1988 that they having been working since December, 1986 were entitled to regularisation under Section 31 (3) (v). On March 25, the head of department made another request to the Vice-Chancellor for issuing the letter of extension so that petitioners be paid their salary. Copy of this letter was endorsed to Dean Faculty of Arts who on same day recommended to continue petitioners till regular appointments were made to avoid any unnecessary hardship to them. This was approved and on 30th March, 1988 the order was issued under section 13 (6) appointing petitioners till selection through statutory selection Committee was made. And the appointment was made effective in continuation of earlier appointments. But the order was cancelled on 17th April, 1987 in pursuance of Chancellor's order dated 29th March. Validity of this order shall be examined a little latter. But to complete the narration of facts it may be mentioned that one Dr. S. K. Rai appears to have made representation to the Chancellor against ad-hoc appointment of petitioners in April, 1987. On it the University was required to submit its comments to the Chancellor and in February, 1988 it informed that term of petitioners had not been extended. And they were not in service of University. On this information the Chancellor dismissed the representation without examining objection of Dr. Rai. But when University came to know of the order of Chancellor then it realised its mistake in extending services of petitioners and corrected it by cancelling the impugned order. Why should such things happen in such institutions passed comprehension. Even if the action was innocent its effect was unfortunate. Institutions like Universities should avoid acting in a manner which may be distructive of fairness and may give rise to misgiving and speculation. Reverting to the issues the order dated 17th April, 1988 issued by the Registrar intimating petitioners that extension granted to them in March, 1988 since the date of their appointment stands cancelled in view of the Chancellor's order dated 29th March, which dismissed the representation of Dr. Rai as infructuous could technically be said to proceed on misapprehension. True the Chancellor having dismissed the representation without entering into merits and recording any finding that appointment of petitioners was contrary to law as claimed by Dr. Rai it could not furnish material for cancelling the order extending petitioners services. But really speaking the University acted not only properly and reasonably but legally as well since the order of Chancellor having being procured on representation that petitioners were not in service the order extending services of petitioners from back date resulted in an anomaly and the only way in which the wrong could be set right was by recalling the order. The import of Chancellor's order- being that since petitioners were not in service since July, 1987 the order extending their services from the date after expiry of first appointment could not be permitted to continue. But since petitioners were not parties to it and they continued to function on assurance of head of department who appears to have been equally unaware of all this, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive them of their emoluments. Coming to the principal issue if the petitioners' services stood regularised under section 31 (3) (b). Section 31 deals with appointment of teachers of the University and provides that, a teacher shall be appointed on recommendation of a selection committee. The only exception to this is provided in Section 31 (3) (a) where officiating appointment has to be made in a vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months. All other appointments to a vacancy which is likely to last for more than six months is required to be made after reference to selection committee visualised under section 31 (4) (a) in accordance with procedure provided in sub-section (6) to (10) of Section 31 (4). To appreciate the claim of regularisation it appears necessary to extract Section 31 (3) (b) which reads as under : " Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a selection committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post of same cardre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department, then unless the Executive Council or the Management as the case may be decides to terminate bis services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee ; Provided that this clause shall not apply unless the teacher concerned holds the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of such substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee : Provided further that appointment in a substantive capacity under this clause of a teacher who had served, before such appointment, continuously for a period of less than two years, shall be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply accordingly. This sub-section visualises that if- (a) a teacher is appointed to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, or (b) a teacher is appointed to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months, and such appointment has been made after reference to selection committee that is committee contemplated under section 31 (4) then if the temporary post on which a teacher was appointed becomes permanent or the permanent post on which he was working in leave vacancy becomes permanently vacant then such teacher subject to fulfilment of other requirements shall become regular or permanent teacher. This benefit is also available if during the period a teacher is working temporarily as mentioned in first or second part of the sub-section if a post in same cardre and grade is newly created or falls vacant. The provision, undoubtedly, is enacted to provide uniformity, continuity and remove uncertainty by entitling a temporary teacher who has already faced Selection Committee the benefit of regularisation if the permanent vacancy is available. It is a beneficient piece of legislation which has to be construed liberally in favour of teachers. But any construction which may defeat its objective or may result in multi its purpose has to be avoided. Liberality cannot overstep legislative limits. A construction or interpretation which does violence to the text or spirit cannot be resorted for benevolent interpretation. To get benefit of this provision it is imperative that the teacher should have been appointed under section 31 against a temporary post. In other words appointment should be preceded by reference to Selection Committee. The use of words 'after' and 'a' in the sub-section before the expression reference to Selection Committee and temporary post are significant and not without purpose. They leave no room for doubt that appointment and reference to Selection Committee must be part of same transaction. That is both reference to a Selection Committee and appointment are visualised against a particular post. The wide construction suggesting extending benefit of regularisation under sub- section against any temporary appointment of a teacher who had ever faced selection committee cannot be accepted both because of being contrary to language and intention of legislature and risk of its abuse. Further no selection for appointment under section 31 can be made except after advertisement as contemplated in sub-section (4) of Section. 31. An appointment made under section 13 (6) by the Vice-Chancellor if the matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action is not made after advertisement and is in any case different from appointment under section 31, apart from it a panel prepared under section 31 is for a particular purpose namely, for appointment of a teacher recommended by the Selection Committee to the post permanent or temporary for which selection was made. Once the Selection joins the panel exhausts. That is why the Act does not fix a time limit. It is not a waiting list, but recommendation against a particular post which comes to an end automatically. And the person in the panel ceases to have any right or claim. Such a person appointed in a temporary vacancy which arises afresh cannot claim right under section 31 (3) (b) as he cannot be deemed to be a person who was appointed to that post after reference to Selection Committee. Appointment under section 13 (6) and 31 (3) (b) are entirely different, both in" context and effect. A teacher like petitioners appointed under section 13 (6) out of the remananes of panel prepared by a Selection Committee which either stood exhausted due to the selectee having joined the post or for any other reason cannot claim to be appointee under section 31 (3) (b), therefore, he cannot claim regularisation ; much exmphasis was laid on resolution of executive council passed in November, 1986 empowering Vice Chancellor to appoint ad-hoc teachers from out of panel and it was urged that since petitioners were appointed in pursuance of direction of the Executive Council they were entitled to be regularised. The submission appears to be devoid of any merit. Neither the Vice Chancellor nor the Executive Council are empowered to circumvent law. A teacher who is not appointed under section 31 cannot claim regularisation under section 31 (4) only because the Executive Council directed the Vice Chancellor to appoint from the panel. The purpose of direction was to curtail the power of Vice Chancellor of making appointments under section 13 (6) from outside when those who were placed in the panel but were not fortunate to get regular appointment were available. But that did not alter the nature of appointment which remained under section 13 (6). Merely because they were remanents of panel they did not become teachers appointed against a temporary post after reference to selection committee. Since appointment under section 13 (6) is without reference to Selection Committee a teacher who happens to have been before a Selection Committee but not in reference to the temporary post in which he was appointed under section 13 (6) cannot claim regularisation under section 31 (3) (b) either against that post or a post newly created in the cadre.
(3.) RELIANCE was placed on averments in writ petition that in similar circumstances the University did regularise other teachers. But unfortunately no proper foundation was laid obviously because the plea of regularisation itself was taken in amendment application. Even there it was averred that 13 lecturers who had been appointed initially as ad-hoc lecturers had been regularised as mentioned in representation. But even in that representation it is not mentioned that they were appointed under section 13 (6). And that makes the entire difference. In the result both the petitions fail and are dismissed except to the extent indicated above that petitioners shall be paid their salary if it has not been paid for the period they worked. Petitions dismissed.;