S. C, Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Dr. Rana Pratap Sahi has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 2-1-1986 and 31-3-1986 Annexures-3 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, and a writ of mandamus to command the opposite parties to continue him on the post of Lecturer in History in Lal Bahadur Shastri Post-Graduate College, Gonda. A further writ has been claimed to prohibit Higher Education Services Commission, for short Commission from making selection for the post held by the petitioner.
(2.) ANNEXURE no. 2 is copy of communication dated 31-3-1986 from the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College to several ad hoc teachers of the College, including the petitioner. Through this communication, the concerned teachers have been informed that their adhoc appointments will continue only till candidates selected by the Commission join or till 30th June whichever is earlier. In this communication, reference has been made to the letter of the Director of Higher Education Services Commission dated 29- 1-1986 and to Section 6 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, for short Act. Copy of the Director's letter is ANNEXURE no 3 to the writ petition. The Director also has referred to Section 16 of the Act and stated that there is no occasion for ad hoc Lecturers to be continued in service after 30th June. In view of ANNEXUREs 2 and 3, the petitioner was threatened with termination of his service and he accordingly approached this Court on 16-5-1986 through the instant petition. The petition was admitted the same day and an interim order was passed staying operation of the order dated 21-3-1986, ANNEXURE-2. This interim order continues till date. The material controversy raised by the petitioner is that his services stand regularised under Section 31-B added to the Act with effect from 22-6-1985 through an Ordinance which was subsequently replaced by an Act. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may now be noticed. Admittedly, the petitioner who was M.A. in Medieval History and Ph.D. was appointed Lecturer in the concerned College by order dated 30- 11-1983, Annexure-1. Admittedly again, this appointment was made under the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties), Order, 1983. The appointment order specifically states that the appointment is purely ad hoc and can be terminated any time. In pursuance of the appointment order, the petitioner joined his post on 1-12-1983. With effect from 22-6-1985, the Act stood amended and Section 31-B found place therein. The petitioner claims that Section 31-B is applicable to him and even though his initial appointment was adhoc, the same, under Section 31-B, stands regularised and, therefore, neither his services can be terminated nor there is any vacancy against which the Commission can proceed to make selection.
(3.) ARRAYED as opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the Director, Higher Education Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, Lal Bahadur Shastri Post-graduate College, Gonda through its Manager, Secretary, Committee of Management, Lal Bahadur Shastri Post-graduate College, Gonda and Higher Education Service Commission through its Secretary, Allahabad. Only opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed counter-affidavits. However, the writ petition has been contested by the Commission also. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3, it has been stated that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification for being appointed Lecturer in History and, therefore, he cannot claim regularisation under Section 31-B. It is pointed out that under subclause (b) of clause (1) of statute 10.01 of the Avadh University Statutes, 1978 as amended by Avadh University (Third Amendment) Statutes, 1981, a candidate for the post of Lecturer is required to possess "consistently good academic record with atleast first or high second class Master's Degree" apart from the qualification mentioned in clause (a.) but the petitioner did not possess such record although he possessed the qualification mentioned in clause (a). It is stated in paragragh 1 of the counter-affidavit dated 23-7-1986 that the petitioner had secured 53 percent marks in his M. A. examination which did not qualify either for first class or for high second class. In the same paragraph, it is also stated that the Selection Committee did not relax the prescribed qualification. In support of the plea, minutes of the Selection Committee has been filed as Annexure B-2. Appointment despite lack of prescribed qualification is explained by stating that it was made in view of pressing need for the particular period. In support of this plea, copies of the letters exchanged between the Vice Chancellor and the College have been filed as Annexure B-3, B-4 and B-5. It has also been pleaded that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was not substantive and, therefore too, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation.;