http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: YOGENDRA SINGH RAWAT & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNAGARHWAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1997

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad               Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Harish Salve, R.B.Mehrotra, Sr. Advs., R.K.Gupta, Uma Datta, D.K. Garg,  M.K.Garg,  (R.C.Verma  and  Chaitanya  Siddarth) Advs. for  R.B.Misra, Adv./Advs.  with him for the appearing parties.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:         (With CA 627 of 1998 (a) SLP (C) No.266/94) D.P. Wadhwa. J.      Special leave granted.      The appellants  filed writ  petitions in the High Court of Judicature  at Allahabad  praying that  they  be  granted substantive appointments  as lecturers in the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal  University (for short ‘the University’) in terms  of  the  Uttar  Pradesh  State  Universities  (Second Amendment) Ordinance  (No.44 of 1991) which was later passed as Act  No.1 of 1992 by the U.P. Legislature called the U.P. State Universities  (Amendment) Act,  1992 (for  short,  the ‘amending  Act’).  A  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court, however, did  not find  any merit  in the writ petitions and dismissed the  same  by  judgment  dated  August  20,  1993. Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this Court.      Originally there were eight appellants. Appellants Y.S. Rawat, G.P.  Sharma and  J.P. Madhwal  are stated  to be  no longer interested  in pursing  their appeals. The appellants before us are now Dr. L.P. Lakhera, Shri R.S. Negi, Dr. M.S. Shri Ajay Pal Singh and Dr. Surendra Joshi.      Sub-section (6)  of Section  13 of the Universities Act provides that where any matter is of urgent nature requiting immediate action  and the  same cannot  be immediately dealt with by  any officer  or authority  or any other body of the University empowered  by or  under the Universities Act then to deal  with that  Situation the  Vice-Chancellor may  take action as  he may  deem fit.  He shall  thereafter forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer,  authority or  other body  who or  which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter. Under sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

section (8)  of Section  13 where  exercise of  power by the Vice  Chancellor   under  sub-section   (6)   involved   the appointment of  an officer  or a  teacher of the University, such appointment  shall terminate  on the  appointment being made in  the prescribed  manner or  on the  expiration of  a period of six months from the date of the order of the Vice- Chancellor, whichever  is earlier.  That would mean that the appointment of a lecturer  made by the Vice-Chancellor could not last  for more  than  six  months.  Section  31  of  the Universities Act provides for the appointment of teachers of University.  Sub-section   (1)  thereof  provides  that  the teachers  of  the  University  shall  be  appointed  by  the Executive Council  on the  recommendations  of  a  Selection Committee in  the manner  laid down  in that  Section.  Sub- section (10)  of Section  31 provides  that no selection for any appointment  shall be made except after advertisement of the   vacancy in  at least  three issues  of two  newspapers having adequate  circulation in  the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 49 deals with Statutes and clause (d) lays down that the  Statutes   may  provide   for  the  classification  and recruitment   (including    minimum    qualifications    and experience) of  the teachers  of the  University. As to what are the qualifications prescribed for a lecturer by relevant Statutes of  the University, it will be appropriate to refer to the Ordinance which was subsequently replaced by Act No.1 of 1992,  Sub-section (2)  of Section 1 of this amending Act provided that  this Act  shall be  deemed to  have come into force on  November 22,  1991. Sections  2 and  3 of this Act amending the  Principal Act,  that is  the Universities Act, are as follows:      "2. In  Section  13  of  the  Uttar      Pradesh  State  Universities  Act.,      1973, as  amended and re-enacted by      the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-      enactment and  Amendment) Act, 1974      hereinafter  referred   to  as  the      Principal Act:-      (a) in  sub-section (6),  after the      words "where  any matter"  in words      "other  than   the  appointment  of      teacher f  the University" shall be      inserted.      (b) in sub-section, the words "or a      teacher of the University" shall be      omitted.      3. In  Section 31  of the Principal      Act:-      (a) in  sub-section (1)  words "The      selection committee  shall meet  as      often  as   necessary"   shall   be      inserted at the end:-      (b) in sub-section (3) after clause      (b) and the provisions thereto, the      following clause shall be inserted,      namely:-      (c) any teacher of the Universities      who was appointed as lecturer on or      before  June   30,   1991   without      reference    to    the    Selection      Committee by  way of  a short terms      arrangement in  accordance with the      provisions for  the time  being  in      force for  such appointment, may be      given  substantive  appointment  by      the  Executive   Council,  if,  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    substantive  vacancy  of  the  same      cadre  and   grade  in   the   same      department is available on November      22, 1991 if such teacher:-      (I) is  serving as such on November      22, 1991  continuously  since  such      initial appointment by way of short      term arrangement;      (II) possessed on November 22, 1991      the  qualification   required   for      regular  appointment  to  the  post      under   the   provisions   of   the      relevant statutes  in force  on the      date of the initial appointment:      (III) has  been found  suitable for      regular    appointment    by    the      Executive Council."      Therefore, the  controversy before  the Court was as to what would  be the  qualifications for  a lecturer  for  the amending  Act   to  be   applicable.  While  the  appellants contended that the qualifications would be those as existing when the  amending Act  came into  force, the  stand of  the University was  that the  qualifications would  be as on the date of  the initial appointment of the appellants. The High Court held that the qualification would be those as existing when the  initial appointments  under Section  13(6) of  the Principal Act  were made  and not when the amending Act came into force  and that  is November  22, 1991. As to what were the qualifications prescribed for lecturer on the dates when respective appointments  came through,  we may  refer to the relevant Statutes   11.01  of the University. First time the qualifications and  appointments of  teachers in  university was prescribed  on June 25, 1978. The statute was amended in the year 1980 and subsequently as under:      "QUALIFICATIONS AND  APPOINTMENT OF      TEACHERS IN THE UNIVERSITY      11.01  (1)   In  the  case  of  the      Faculties of  Arts,  Commerce,  and      Science, the following shall be the      minimum  following   shall  be  the      minimum qualifications for the post      of a  Lecturer in  the  University,      namely -      (a) a  doctorate in  the subject of      study concerned or a published work      of a high standard in that subject;      and      (b)  consistently   good   academic      record (that is to say, the overall      record    of     all    assessments      throughout the academic career of a      candidate),  with  first  class  or      high second class (that than 54 per      cent marks)  Master’s degree in the      subject  concerned   or  equivalent      degree of  a foreign  University in      such subject.      (2) Where  the Selection  Committee      is of  opinion  that  the  research      work of  a candidate,  as evidenced      either by  his  thesis  or  by  his      published work,  is of  a very high      standard, it  may relax  any of the      requirements  specified   in   sub-      clause (b) of Clause (1).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

    (3) If  a  candidate  possessing  a      qualification     prescribed     in      sub/clause (a) of Clause (1) is not      available  or   is  not  considered      suitable  a   person  possessing  a      consistently good  academic  record      (due  weightage   being  given   to      M.Phil,  or  equivalent  degree  or      research work  of quality)  may  be      appointed on  the condition  tat he      will    attain    the    prescribed      qualification (namely  doctorate or      published work as aforesaid) within      five years  from the  date  of  his      appointment:      Provided that  where the teacher so      appointed  fails   to  attain   the      prescribed qualification within the      said period of five years, he shall      not   be    entitled   to    yearly      increments after such period, until      he attains such qualifications.      (4)................      11.01 (1)(b)   :  Consistently good      academic record  with first or high      second class Master’s degree, or an      equivalent  degree   of  a  foreign      University in a relevant subject.      Sub-clause (a)  of Clause (7) of Statute 11.01 provided that  marks   above  the   mid-point  between   the  minimum percentage or  marks fixed  by the   University for award of first and  second divisions are said to be high second class marks. in exercise of power section (1) read with Section 15 of U.P.  State Universities  Act, 1973, read with Section 21 of the  Uttar Pradesh  General Clauses  Act, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh,  amended the  First Statute of the University called the  25th Amendment. This was made on March 25, 1997. For existing Statute 11.01 the following was substituted:      "11.01 (1)  in the  case of Faculty      of Arts  (except the Departments of      Music, Drawing  and Painting),  and      the  faculties   of  Commerce   and      science the  minimum qualifications      for the  post of  a Lecturer in the      University shall be Master’s Degree      or  an   equivalent  Degree   or  a      foreign University  in the relevant      subject with   at  lest 55 per cent      marks of  its equivalent  grade and      consistently good academic record.      (2)  In  the  case  of  Faculty  of      Education,       the        minimum      qualifications for  the post  of  a      Lecture in  the University shall be      Master’s degree  or  an  equivalent      degree of  a foreign  University in      Education (that is an M.Ed. degree)      with at  least 55 per cent marks or      its    equivalent     grade     and      consistently good academic record.      (3)......................      (4)......................      (5)  For   the  purpose   of   this      Statute:-      (a)  A   candidate  (other  than  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    candidate for  Lecturership in  the      Faculties  of  Education  and  Law)      having obtained  either 55 per cent      marks    in    Bachelor’s    degree      examination  and  second  class  in      Intermediate examination, or 50 per      cent  marks  in  each  of  the  two      examinations separately  is said to      have consistently  good    academic      record;      (b) A candidate for Lecturership in      the  Faculty  of  Education  having      obtained either  55 per  cent marks      in B.Ed.  degree  examinations  and      second   class    in   any    other      Bachelor’s degree examination or 50      per cent  marks in  each of the two      examinations separately, is said to      have  consistently   good  academic      record;      (c)....................      (6) for  appointment to the post of      Lecturer  only   those   candidates      shall  be   eligible  who,  besides      fulfilling  the   minimum  academic      qualifications prescribed  for  the      post of Lecturer, have qualified in      a comprehensive test, if any, to be      conducted   as    per   scheme   of      University Grants Commission."      This is Statute 11.01 was further Amended on 31.13.1990 which is  known as  26th Amendment. In sub-clause (6) of the First Statue  of 1978  as amended  in March, 1989, following proviso was inserted:      "Provided that a candidate:-      (1)  Who    was  passed  University      Grants, Commission  or  Council  of      Scientific and  Industrial Research      or  Junior   (Research   Fellowship      Examination: (or)      (2) Who  are already  been  awarded      Ph.D or M.Phil Degree; or ]      (3)  Who  will  be  awarded  M.Phil      degree upto December, 1990 or Ph.D.      degree upto  December,  1992  shall      not be  required to qualify in such      a comprehensive test."      Thus, the  effect of  the  amending  Act  amending  the Principal Act  and by insertion of clause (c) to sub-section (3) of  Section 31  would  be  that  any  lecturer  who  was appointed without reference to the Selection Committee under sub-section (6)  of Section  13 would  be given  substantive appointment on the conditions that (1) a substantive vacancy was a  available on  November 22,  1991; (2) his appointment was on  or before  June 30,  1991 and was serving as such on November   22,   1991   continuously   since   his   initial appointment; (3)  he continued  to possess qualifications as prescribed under  relevant provisions of the statutes at the time of  initial appointment  on November 22, 1991; and that (4) he  has been  found suitable  for regular appointment by the Executive Council of the University.      It will  also  be  seen  that  before  March  1989  for appointment as  a lecturer,  it was  necessary that a person should  possess  a  Doctorate  degree  in  the  subject  and consistently have good academic record. However, before this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

date of  no  candidate having Doctorate degree was available but the  Selection Committee  was of  the opinion  that  the Research and  thesis work  published by a candidate was of a very high  standard it  may relax  any such  requirement  of possessing a  Doctorate degree.  After May  25, 1989  entire statute 11.01  was substituted  and  now  a  candidate  must posses good  academic record that is he should have obtained either 55 per cent marks in Bachelor Degree Examination, and Second Class  in Intermediate  Examination or  50  per  cent marks in  each of the two examinations separately subject of course his  possessing consistently  good  academic  record. Apart from possessing good academic record under sub-section (6) it  is necessary  for a  candidate to  have  passed  the qualifying comprehensive  test conducted  by the  University Grants Commission. But then he is exempted from that test if he had  already been  awarded Ph.D. and M.Phil degree or who would be  awarded M.Phil  degree upto December 1990 or Ph.D. degree upto December 1992.      In University  of Delhi  vs. Raj  Singh &  Ors.  [1994] Supp. (3) SCC 516, the question before this Court was if the University Grants  Commission (Qualifications  Required of a Person to be Appointed to the teaching Staff of a University and Institutions  affiliated to  it) Regulation,  1991  were valid and  mandatory and  if so  was  the  Delhi  University obliged under  law to  comply therewith. This Court gave the answer in  affirmative. It  referred to Entries 63 and 66 of List I  in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Ac t,  1956   vis-a-vis-  Delhi   University  Act,   1922.  The University Grants  Commission  Act  was  enacted  under  the provisions of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. It entitled Parliament to legislate in respect of "coordination and determination  of standards  in institutions  for higher education  or   Research  and   scientific   and   technical institutions." This  Court observed  that Entry 66 of List I give power to the Union to see that the required standard of higher education  in the  country was maintained. It was the exclusive  responsibility   of  the  Central  Government  to coordinate and  determine the standards of higher education. The Court  then observed  that such powers  would comprehend the power  to require  those  who  possess  the  educational qualifications required  for holding the post of lecturer in Universities and  colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of  which would  establish  that  they  possess  the minimal proficiency  for holding  such post.  That, however, would   not    mean   the    University   cannot   prescribe qualifications  over  and  above  those  prescribed  by  the University Grants Commission.      In University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors,  [(1996)   10  SCC   536,  this  Court  considered  the recommendations of  the University Grants Commission made in 1991 prescribing  minimum  qualification  for  the  post  of Lecturers  in  the  Universities  and  Colleges  which  were amended by  circulars dated  10.2.1993  and  15.6.1993.  The recommendations in  the Regulations  of  1991  and  the  two circulars as quoted in the judgment are as under:      "Good academic record with at least      55% marks or an equivalent grade at      Master’s  level   in  the  relevant      subject from  an Indian  University      or  an  equivalent  degree  from  a      foreign   University.    Candidates      besides   fulfilling    the   above      qualifications should  have cleared      the eligibility  test for lecturers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    conducted by  UGC, CSIR  or similar      test accredited by the UGC."      By Circular dated 10.2.1993 the UGC      granted exemption from appearing in      the   eligibility   test   to   the      following categories:      1.   All candidates who have passed      UGC/CSIR J.R.F. Examination.      2.  All candidates who have already      been awarded Ph. D. degree.      3.  All candidates who have already      been awarded  M.Phil. degree  up to      31.3.1991.      4.   All candidates who will submit      their   Ph.D.    thesis    up    to      31.12.1993.      By  Circular   dated  15.6.1993  in      respect of  candidates  falling  in      category   (3)    exemption    from      appearing in  the eligibility  test      was extended  to candidates who had      been awarded  M.Phil. degree  up to      31.12.1992.      By a  notification dated 21.6.1995,      the  1991   Regulations  have  been      amended and the following provision      has   been    added    below    the      requirement regarding  clearing the      eligibility test for appointment on      the post of Lecturer:      "Provided that  candidates who have      submitted Ph.D.  thesis  or  passed      the    M.Phil.    examination    by      31.12.1993 are  exempted  from  the      eligibility  test   for   lecturers      conducted by  UGC, CSIR  or similar      test accredited by the UGC."      Since the  Executive Committee  of the  University made recommendations in  1992 Statute  11.01 as  amended by  26th amendment would apply in the cases of the appellants.      By letter  dated July  5/17.6.1992 University  informed the  appellants   that  they   were  not  found  fit  to  be regularised on  the post  of lecturers. The letter is to the following effect:      "Sub:  Regularisation   of  ad  hoc lecturers      Sir,           As    per    the    conditions      mentioned in  Ordinance No.44 dated      22/11/91 the  matter regarding  the      regularisation of  all the  ad  hoc      lecturers was put for consideration      before  the  Executive  Council  on      22/4/1992.  The  Executive  Council      after   having    considered   your      application   for    regularisation      seriously, did  not find you fit to      be  regularised   on  the  post  of      lecturer. We  regret for  the same.      For  your   information  you  could      same.  For   your  information  you      could  not  qualify  the  following      conditions:      Recommendation  : No      Reason          :Not qualified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    Were not working on 30/6/1991.      Sd/Dy. Registrar                 (Admn.)             For Registrar."      It has  been  rightly  held  by  the  High  Court  that artificial break  in service  cannot be  taken into  account while considering  the question  that any  of the appellants was not working continuously as on November 22,1991 from the date of  his initial appointment on or before June 30, 1991. High Court  has also  held that opportunity was given to the appellants when  the Executive  Committee  considered  their cases. Taking  into account  the relevant  statutes  of  the University, the  High Court  was of the view that if any one of the appellants had already been awarded Ph.D. or M. Phil, degree or  will be  awarded M.Phil degree upto December 1990 or Ph.D. degree upto December 1992 he would be qualified for the post  of lecturer.  Thereafter the  High Court addressed itself to  the question if the appellants who had been given short term  ad hoc appointments were entitled to substantive appointments.   It   noted   that   procedure   for   making appointments was  that the  vacancy had  to be advertised in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act and in absence  of the advertisement there would be violation of Article 16  of the  Constitution and  any such  appointments would be  rendered illegal.  The Executive  Committee  could make appointment  only on  the basis  of the recommendations made  by  the  Selection  Committee.  The  High  Court  then observed as under:      "All the  ad  hoc  lecturers  whose      cases  were   considered   by   the      Assessment Committee  on  March  7,      1992 and  by the  Executive Council      on April 22, 1992 were given ad hoc      appointments without  following the      rules namely  without advertisement      of vacancy and without having faced      selection   committee.   They   are      claiming the  benefit of  U.P.  Act      No.1 of  1992 in  order  to  get  a      substantive appointment  and  as  a      corollary  they  must  satisfy  the      requirement of  the said Act and if      the requirement  of the Act is that      they  should   possess   prescribed      qualification      for      regular      appointment  under   the   relevant      Statutes, they must do so. The fact      that  at  some  earlier  stage  the      University made an advertisement in      which wrong or lesser qualification      was mentioned  is wholly irrelevant      and   that   advertisement   cannot      override  the  requirement  of  the      amending   Act.    It   has    been      consistently held that a person not      possessing prescribed qualification      cannot   be    appointed    in    a      University  or   in  an  affiliated      college and  if such  a  person  is      appointed, the  appointment  itself      becomes illegal."      High Court  then concluded  that it  was clearly of the opinion that  in order  to get  the benefit  of the Act 1 of 1992 amending  the principal  Act the  ad hoc lecturers much possess the  qualifications required for regular appointment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

under the  provisions of  the relevant statutes as laid down in sub-section  (ii) of clause (c) of Section 31 of the Act. High Court  said that the qualifications prescribed prior to the amendment would not get revived. High Court did not rely on Single  Judge decision  of that  court in  Writ  Petition No.25255 of  1992 Dr.  Siya Ram  Singh vs.  Director  Higher Education where  benefit or regularisation had been given to ad hoc  lecturers of the affiliated colleges under Ordinance No.43 of 191 which was also promulgated on November 22, 1991 with similar  provision as in the present case. In that case the initial ad hoc appointment itself having been held to be illegal, regularisation  had ben refused by the authorities. It was  also found  that the  petitioners  therein  did  not possess the  prescribed qualifications.  As to the reasoning of the  learned  single  Judge,  the  High  Court  not  only distinguished that  judgment but rater disapproved the same. It also  noticed that  in the case before the learned Single Judge  the   question  was  appointment  to  the  affiliated 14.10.91 for  almost six  months was  an artificial break in his service  not to  be taken  into account. In Intermediate and  B.A.  examinations  he  got  45.3%  and  45/5%    marks respectively. His  claim that  he did  work from  1.4.91  to 13.10.91 without  pay due  to financial  constraints in  the University is  not acceptable.  Moreover no  vacancy in  the post of lecturer in Geography was available on 22.11.91. His claim for  substantive appointment could not be recommended. His having obtained a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1990 did  not  advance  his  case  for  his  getting  substantive appointment.      Shri R.S. Negi was appointed on 2.11.91 as found by the High Court and he was not working as such on 30.6.91. In his affidavit  filed   in  these   proceeding  he   submitted  a certificates of the Registrar of the University stating that R.S. Negi  had submitted  his thesis  on 2.11.94  and he was awarded degree  of   Doctor of  Philosophy in Geology in the Year 1996.  At the  relevant time no post of lecturer in his subject was available. Negi, therefore, could not fulfil the qualifications  prescribed   and  was  not  recommended  for colleges  of  the  University  while  in  the  present  case appointment was in the University it self which was governed by separate  enactment. The  High Court  then  examined  the individual cases  of the  appellants and found that they did not possess  the requisite  qualifications and  further that their cases  had been  considered by the Executive Committee who  did   not  find  them  suitable  to  be  given  regular appointments. They  High Court, therefore, by judgment dated August 20,  1993 dismissed  the writ  petitions holding that these lacked  merit and vacated the interim orders passed in favour of the appellants. When the matter came to this Court in special  leave petitions  while granting  leave stay  was declined.      Keeping the  aforesaid parameters  in view,  we may now consider the cases of each of the appellants.      Dr. L.P.  Lakhera as  found by  the  High  Court    was appointed as  a part-time  lecturer  on  16.8.1990  for  two months. He  was given fresh appointment on 14.10.91. He was, therefore, not working on 30.6.91. It could not be said that break in service from 30.4.91 to substantive appointment.      Dr. M.S.  Sati was  appointed as  part-time lecturer on 8.11.1990 for  two months and his appointment came to an end on 8.1.91.  He was  given  fresh  appointment  as  part-time lecturer for  two months  on 14.2.91 which ended on 14.4.91. He was  thereafter appointed on regular basis for six months on 11.9.91.  In his  affidavit filed  in this Court Dr. Sati submitted  a   certificates  from   the  Registrar   of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

University certifying  that he  had submitted  his thesis in Geology on  3.9.94. He  was  awarded  degree  of  Doctor  of Philosophy in  1996. Assuming  that there  was an artificial break in  his service  Dr. Sati had neither qualified in the comprehensive test  of the  UGC   nor was  he awarded M.Phil degree in December 1990 or Ph.D. degree in December 1992. He obtained 45%  marks in  the Intermediate examination and 60% in  B.Sc.   examination.  Since   he  did   not  fulfil  the qualifications prescribed  his name  was not recommended for substantive appointment.      Shri Ajay  Pal  Singh  was  appointed  as  lecturer  on 2.11.91. Earlier  he had  been appointed  on  7.9.88  for  a period of  two months. In this affidavit filed in this Court he stated  that he  submitted his  thesis for D.Phil in 1993 and was  awarded D.Phil  degree in  1993. In  support of his claim that  he had submitted his thesis he has not filed any certificate  from   the  Registrar  of  the  University.  He obtained  48%   marks  in   Intermediate  and  52%  in  B.A. examination. No  post in  his subject  was also available on 2.11.91. Since  Sri Singh  did not  fulfil the  criteria for substantive appointment his case was not recommended.      Dr. Surendra  Joshi was appointed as part-time lecturer on 13.8.90  for two months, which appointment continued upto 25.7.91. He  was given  fresh appointment  on 15.6.91  which continued uptil  25.7.91. After  about nearly one and a half months Dr.  Joshi was  again appointed  on 11.9.91  and that appointment continued  upto 11.3.92. In his case it could be said that  he was working continuously from 30.6.91 till the date of  the commencement  of the  Ordinance. In  Bachelor’s degree  Dr.   Joshi  passed   in   third   division   though Intermediate in  the second  division. He obtained degree in D.Phil in 1988. As he did not fulfil the criteria he was not recommended for  substantive appointment  by  the  Executive Committee.      We are therefore the view that the High Court was right in coming  to the  conclusion that  the appellants  did  not satisfy the requisite qualifications or the criteria as laid for their  appointment as lecturers in the University. We do not find  any infirmity  in  the  orders  of  the  Executive Committee of  the University not recommending the appellants for substantive  appointment as lecturers in the University. These appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.