Holding

For the benefit of the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992, an ad‑hoc lecturer must have possessed the qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of his initial appointment; lacking such qualifications, he is ineligible for substantive appointment.

Summary

The appellants, who had been appointed as ad‑hoc lecturers in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University under s.13(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 between August 1990 and February 1991, sought substantive appointment under the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992. The key question was which set of qualifications – those existing at the time of the amendment (Nov 22 1991) or those at the date of the original ad‑hoc appointment – governed eligibility for regularisation. The Supreme Court held that the amendment required the ad‑hoc lecturers to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular appointment under the relevant university statutes as they existed at the time of their initial appointment, and that an artificial break in service could not be ignored for the continuous‑service condition. Since none of the appellants satisfied those qualification criteria or the continuous‑service requirement, their applications for substantive appointment were rejected. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

What qualifications must ad‑hoc lecturers satisfy to be eligible for substantive appointment under the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992?
Whether the qualification date to be applied is the date of the amendment (Nov 22 1991) or the date of the original ad‑hoc appointment?
Whether an artificial break in service can be disregarded for the purpose of the continuous‑service condition under the amendment?
Whether the University’s failure to advertise vacancies and follow the selection committee procedure violates Article 16 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

University Grants Commission Act, 1956
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973s. 13(6), s. 31(3)

Subjects

ad‑hoc lecturersubstantive appointmentqualification criteriacontinuous serviceU.P. State Universities ActUniversity amendmentArticle 16University Grants Commission regulations

Judgment

YOGENDRA SINGH RA WAT AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
~
I
HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 5, 1998

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973:

S. 13(6) ands. 31(3) as amended by U.P. State Universities (Amendment)
Act, 1992-Statute JJ.06 as amended on 31.12.1990-Ad hoc Lecturers in
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University-Substantive appointment-
c
Qualifications-Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis under s.13(6) between
August 1990 and February 1991-Not recommended for substantive
appointment-Writ petition dismissed by High Court-Held, in order to get
the benefit of the Amendment Act, 1992 ad hoc lecturers must possess the
qualifications required for regular appointment under the provisions of D
~ relevant statutes as laid down in clause (c) of s. 31 (3)-Arti.ficial break not
to be taken into account while considering period of continuous service-
Since the appellants did not fulfil the requisite qualifications, they were
rightly not recommended for regular appointment.

E
The appellants were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in the Hemwati
Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, under the provision of s. 13(6) of the
~ U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 on different dates between August 1990
and February 1991.

Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (Principal Act) F
~
,.. pfuvides that teachers of the University would be appointed by the Executive
' Council on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in the manner
laid down in the section and that no appointment would be made except after
advertisement of the vacancy. By the U.P. State Universities (Amendment)
Act, 1992 s. 31 of the Principal Act was amended and it was provided that
lecturers appointed under the provisions of s.13(6) on or before 30.6.1991 G
would be gi\'en substantive appointment by the Executive Council if any
t-
substantive vacancy in the same department was available on 22.11.1991 (the
date of coming into force of the amending Act) and the lecturer was serving
as such on that date continuously since his initial appointment, he possessed
on 22.11.19.91 the qualifications required for regular appointment to the H
685
'\.,,...-
l,,-
'
1
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

po~1, and was found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive Council.
A 1'-
The appellants were served with a letter dated July 5/17-6-1992 by the
University stating that they were not found fit to be regularised on the posts
of Lecturers for the reasons that they were not qualified. It was also stated
that they were not working on 30th June, 1991. The appellants filed writ
B petitions before the High Court ii raying that they be granted substantive
appointment as Lecturers in the University in terms of the U.P. Universities
(Amendment) Act, 1992.

It was contended for the appellants that the qualifications as existing
when the amending Act came into force would be a1iplicable. The University,
c on the other hand contended that the qualifications as on the date of the (
initial appointment of the appellants would be applicable. The High Court
held that the qualifications would be those as existing when the initial
appointments under s. 13(6) of the Princi1ial Act were made and not when
the amending Act came into force i.e., 22.11.1991. The High Court found
that none of the appellants sati~fied the requisite qualifications or the criteria µ
D
and dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present
appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1.1. In order to get the benefit of the U.P. State Universities
E
(Amendment) Act, 1992 amending the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the
ad hoc lecturers must possess the qualifications required for regular
appointment under the provisions of the relevant statutes as laid down in sub-
clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 31(3) of the Act The effect of the amendment

F
would be that any lecturer who was appointed under sub-section (6) of Section
13, without reference to the Selection Committee would be given ~11bstantive y
..
ap1iointment on the conditions that (1) a ~11bstantive vacancy was available on
November 22,· 1991; (2) his appointment was on or before June 30, 1991 and
he 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 statute at the time of initial appointment on November
G 22, 1991; and (4) he has been found suitable for regular appointment by the -t
Executive Council of the University. [696-F; 692-G-H; 673-A]
I
1.2. As regards the academic qualifications, since the Executive
Council of the University made recommendations in 1992, Statute 11.01 as
H amended on 31.12.1990 by 26tl\ amendment, would apply in the cases of the
Y.S. RA WAT v. H.N.B.G. UNIVERSITY (D.P. WAD HWA, J.] 687
appellants. Accordingly, a candidate must possess good academic record, that A
-·1 is, he should have obtained 55% marks in Master's degree; and either 55%
marks in Bachelor Degree Examination and Second Class in Intermediate
Examinations, or 50 per cent marks in each 'of the two examinations
separately. Apart from possessing good academic record, under sub-section
(6) it is necessary for a candidate to have passed the qualifying comprehensive B
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
he would be awarded M. Phil degree upto December 1990 or Ph.D. degree
upto D_ecember 1992. 1693-B-D]

University of Delhi v. Raj Singh & Ors., 11994] Suppl. 3 SCC 516 and C
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors., (19961 10
sec 536, referred to.
1.3. On considering the cases of the appellants individually, the High
Court was right in holding that the appellants did not satisfy the requisite
:.J.. qualifications or the criteria as laid down for their appointment as lecturers D
in the Univer.sity. There is no infirmity in the orders of the Executive Council
of the University not reeommending the appellants for substantive appointment
as lecturers in the University. [698,G-H]

2. High Court was right in holding that artificial break in service
cannot be taken into account while considering the question that any of the E
appellants was not working continuously as on November 22, 1991 from the
date of his initial appointment on or before June 30, .1991. 1695-G-H[
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 365-370 of
1994 Etc.
~ F
'<:" From the Judgment rnd Order dated 20.8.93.ofthe Allahabad High Court
in W. P. (C) Nos. 27592, 27838, 2524, 29023;46330 and 17203of1992.

Harish Salve, R.B. Mehrotra, R.K. Gupta, Uma Dutta, D.K. Garg, M.K.
,Garg (R.C. Vernia and Chaitainya Siddharth) for R.B. Misra for the appearing
parties. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. Special leave granted.

The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A 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 University (Second Amendment)
Ordinance (No. 44 of 1991) which was latter passed as Act No. I of 1992 by
the U.P. Legislature called the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1992
(for s~ort, the 'amending Act') . The amending Act amended the U.P. State
B Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Principal 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.

C Originally there were eight appellants. Appellants Y.S. Rawat, G.P. Sharma
and J.P. Madhwal are stated to be no longer interested in pursuing their
appeals. The appellants before us are now Dr. L.P. Lakhera, Shri R.S. Negi,
Dr. M. S. Sati, Shri Ajay Pal Singh and Dr. Surendra Joshi.

Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Universities Act provides that
D where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same ).c
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
E and also to the officer, authority or other body who or which in the ordinary
course would have dealt with the matter. Under sub-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 teach<:r 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
F Vice-Chancellor, whichever is earlier. That would mean that the appointment
y
of a lecturer made by the Vice-Chancellor could not last for more than six
mo'nths. Section 31 of the Universities Act provides for the appoinfment of
teachers of the 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
G Section.11 Sub-section (I 0) 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
H minimum qualifications and experience) of the teachers of the University. As
f
Y.S. RAWATv. H.N.B.G. UNIVERSITY(D.P. WADHWA, J.] · 689
to what are the qualifications prescribed for a lecturer by relevant Statutes of A
-y the University, it will be appropriate to refer to the Ordinance which was
.i
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 University Act, are as follows:
B
"2. In Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973, as
amended and re-enacted by the Uttar Pradesh University (Re-enactment
and Amendment) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Principal
Act:c

(a) in sub-section (6), after the words "where any matter" in words c
"other than the appointment of teacher of the University" shall be
inserted.

(b) in sub-section, the words "or a teacher of the University" shall be
omitted.
D
;,J._ 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:-
E

(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 term arrangement in accordance with the provisions
for the time being in force for such appointment may be given
.,, substantive appointment, by the Executjye _C::_ouncil, if, any substantive
F
~-
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;
G
(II) possessed on November 22, 1991 the qualification required for
-r 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." H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A Therefore, the controversy before the High 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
exiting 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
B of the appellants. The High Court held that the qualification would be those
as existing when the initial appointment 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
C 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

D 11.01 (i) In the case of the Faculties of Arts, Commerce and Science,
the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a k
Lecturer in the University, namely-

(a) a doctorate'in the subject of study concerned or a publish~d
work of a high standard in that subject; and
E (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 is to say, with
an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree in the
subject concerned or equivalent degree of a foreign University in
F 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).
G
(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 that he will attain tlte prescribed
H qualification (namely doctorate or published work as aforesaid) within
Y.S. RAWA Iv. H.N.B.G. UNIVERSITY[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 691

five years from the date of his appointment : A
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.
B
(4) .......

11.01 (l)(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 C
the mid-point between the minimum percentage of marks fixed by the University
for award of first and second divisions are said to be high second class marks.
In exercise of power under Section (1) read with Section 15 of U.P. State
University Act, 1973, read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General
Clauses Act, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, amended the first Statute of the D
University call~d the 25th Amendment. This was made on March 25, 1989. 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 E
University shall be Master's degree or an equivalent Degree or a
foreign University in the relevant subject with at least 55 per cent
marks or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record.

(2) In the case of Faculty of Education, the minimum qualifications
for the post of a Lecturer in the University shall be Master's degree F
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) ........... ..
G
(4) ............ ..

(5) For the pmpose of this Statute :-

(a) A candidate (other than a candidate for Lecturership in the
Faculties of Education and Law) having obtained either 55 per cent H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A marks in Bachelor's degree examination and second class in
Intem1ediate 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
B obtained either 55 per cent marks in B.Ed. degree examination and
second class in any other Bachelor's degree examination or 50 per .,._
cerit marks in each of the two examinations separately, is said to have
consistently good academic record:

(c) ··················
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."
D
This Statute 11.01 was further amended on 31.12.1990 which is known k
as 26th Amendment. In sub-clause (6) of the First Statute of 1978 as amended
in March, 1989, following proviso was inserted :

"Provided that a candidate:-
E
(1) Who has passed University Grants Commission or Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research or Junior (Research Fellowship
Examination; (or).

(2) Who has already been awarded Ph. D. or M. Phil Degree; or
F (3) Who will be awarded M. Phil degree upto December, 1990 or Ph. r
D. degree upto December, 1992 shall not be required to qualify in such T

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
G lecturer who was appointed without reference to the Selection Committee
under sub-section (6) of Section 13 wonld be given substantive appointment ~
on the conditions that (i) a substantive vacancy was available on November
22, J991; (2) his appointment was on or before June 30, 1991 and was SeIVing
as such on·November 22, 1991 continuously since his initial appointment; (3)
H he continued to possess qualification as prescribed under relevant provisions
Y.S. RA WATv. H.N.B.G. UNIVERSITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 693
of the statutes at the time of initial appointment on November 22, 1991; and A
j '"\ that (4) he has been found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive
Council of t11e University.

It will also be seen that before March 1989 for appointment as a lecturer,
it was necessary tliat a person should possess a Doctorate degree in the
subject and consistently have good academic record. However, before tllis B
date if no candidate having Doctorate degree was available but me Selection
Committee was of t11e opinion tliat the research and tllesis 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 possess good academic record tliat is
he should have obtained eit11er 55 per cent marks in Bachelor Degree
c
Examination, and Second Class in Intem1ediate 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 tlie University Grants D
~
Commission. But then he is exempted from mat 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 ofDelhi v. Raj Singh & Ors., [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 516, tlie
question before tliis Court was if the University Grants Commission E
(Qualifications Required of a person to be Appointed to tile Teaching Staff
of a University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 were valid
and mandatory and if so was the Delhi University obliged under law to
comply tlierewitli. This Court gave the answer in affirmative. It referred to
. y
Entries 63 and 66 of List I in tlie Seventli Schedule of tlie Constitution of India F
and to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 vis-a-
vis Delhi University Act, 1922. The University Grants Commission Act was
enacted under tile provisions of Entry 6 of List I of me Seventli 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 tllat Entry 66 of List I give power G
f- to the Union to see tliat me required standard of higher education in tile
country was maintained. It was the exclusive responsibility of me Central
Government to coordinate and determine tile standards of higher education.
The Court tllen observed mat such powers would comprehend tile power to
require tllose who possess tlie educational qualifications required for holding H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R

A 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.

B In University Grants Commission v. 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 wen: amended by
Circulars dated 10.2.1993 and 15.6.1993. The recommendations in the
C 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
D fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility
test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited
by the UGC.

By circular dated 10.2.1993 the UGCgranted exemption from appearing
in the eligibility test to the following categories:
E 1. All candidates who have passed UGC/CSIR J.R.F. Examination.

2. All candidates who ]).ave already been awarded Ph.D degree.

3. All candidates who have already been awarded M.Phil. degree up
to 31.3.1991.
F
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.
G By a notification dated 21.6.1995, the 1991 Regulations have been
amended and the following proviso has been added below the
requirement regarding clearing tlile eligibility test for appointment on
the post of Lecturer :
"Provided that candidates who have submitted Ph. D. thesis or passed
H the M.Phil examination by 31.12.1993 are exempted from the eligibility
~ Y.S. RA WATv. H.N.B.G. UNJVERSITY[D.P. WADHWA, J.] 695

test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CISR or similar test accredited A
-"( by the UGC."

Since t11e Executive Committee of t11e University made recommendations
in 1992 Statute 11.0 l as amended by 26th an1 'ndment would apply in the
cases of the appellants.
B
-( By letter dated July 5/17.6.1992 University infom1ed 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,
c
As per the conditions mentioned in Ordinance No. 44 dated 22/
i 1/91 the matter regarding the regularisation of all the ad hoc lectu!ers
was put for consideration before t11e Executive Council on 22/4/1992.
The Executive Council after having considered your application for
D
;J,_ 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 not qualify the following conditions :

Recoll1Il1endation No

Reason Not qualified E
Were not working on 30/6/1991.

Sd/Dy. Registrar
.. (Admn.) For Registrar." F
y
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, 199 l 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 G
Committee considered their cases. Taking into account the relevant statutes
T-
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 H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A addressed itself to the question if the appellants who had been given short
term ad hoc appointments were entitled to substantive appointments. It noted Y--
that procedure for making appointments were that the vacancy had to be
advertised in accordance with sub-section (I) of Section 31. of the Act and
in absence of the advertisement there would be violation of Article 16 of the
B 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 adhoc lecturers whose cases were considered by the
Assessment Conunittee on March 7, 1992 and by the Executive Council
c· on April 22, 1992were given ad hoc appointments without following
the rules namely without advertisement of vacancy and without having
faced selection committee. They are claiming the benefit ofU.P. Act
No. I 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
D 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. lt has been consistently held that
E 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 •
F order to get the benefit of the Act 1 of 1992 amending the Principal Act the
ad hoc lecturers must possess the qualifications required for regular
appointment 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.
G High Court did not rely on Single Judge decision of that court in Writ Petition
No. 25255of1992 Dr. Siya Ram Smgh v. Director Higher Education, where
benefit of regularisation had been given to ad hoc lecturers of the affiliated
colleges under Ordinance No. 43 of 1991 which was also promulgated on
November 22, 1991 with similar provisions as in the present case. In that case
the initial ad hoc appointment itself having been held to be illegal, regularisation
H had been refused by the authorities. It was also found that the petitioners
Y.S. RAWATv. H.N.B.G. UNIVERSITY[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 697
therein did not possess the prescribed qualifications. As to the reasoning of A
-'\" the learned single Judge, the High Court not only distinguished that judgment
·~ but rather disapproved the same. It also noticed that in the case before the
learned Single Judge the question was appointment to the affiliated colleges
of the University while in the present case appointment was in University
itself which was governed by separate enactment. The High Court then
examined the individual cases of the appellants and found that they did not B
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. The 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 th.:
matter came to this Court in special leave petitions while granting leave stay c
was declined.

11._ 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- D
~
time lecturer on 16.8.1990 for two months. His appointment, however, continued
upto 30.4.91. 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 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 E
13.10.91 without pay due to financial constraints in the Univsersity 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. F
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 proceedings
he submitted a certificate 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 G
i- post of lecturer in his subject was available. Negi, therefore, could not fulfil
that qualifications prescribed and was not recommended for 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 H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A appointment as part-time lecturer for two months on 14.2.91 which ended on r<-
14.4.91. He was thereafter appointed on regular basis for six montl1s on
11. 9. 91. In his affidavit filed in tllis Court Dr. Sati submitted a certificate from
the Registrar of tl1e 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 tllere was an artificial break in his se1Yice Dr. Sati had neither
B qualified in the comprehensive tesi of the UGC nor was he awarded M.Phil r
degree in December 1990 or Ph.D. degree in December 1992. He obtained 45%
marks in Ille Intermediate examination and 60% in B. Sc. examination. Since
he did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed his name was not recommended
for substantive appointment.
c 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 montlls. In his affidavit filed in
t11is Court he stated that he submitted his tllesis for D. Phil in 1993 and was
awarded D. Phil degree in 1993. In support of his claim tllat he had submitted
his tllesis he has not filed any certificate from Ille Registrar of tl1e University.
D He obtained 48% marks in Intermediate and 52.8% in B.A. examination. No k
post in his subject was also available on 2.11. 91. Since Sri Singh did not fulfil
Ille certeria for substantive appointment his case was not recommended.

Dr. Surendra Joshi was appointed as part-time lecturer on 13.8.90 for two
montlls, which appointment continued upto 25.7.91. He was given fresh
E appointment on 15.6.91 which continued until 25.7.91. After about nearly one '

and a half montlls Dr. Joshi was again appointed on 11.9.91 and tlmt appointment
continued up to 11.3. 92. In his case it could be said tllat he wa5 working
continuously from 30.6. 91 till the date of Ille commencement of the Ordinance.
In Bachelor's degree Dr. Joshi passed in'tllird division tllough Intermediate ..
F in Ille second division. He obtained degree in D. Phil in 1988. As he did not ....
fulfil Ille criteria he was not recommended for substantive appointment by Ille "(

Executive Committee.

We are therefore of tlle view tllat Ille High Court was right in coming
to Ille conclusion tllat Ille appellants did not satisfy Ille requisite qualifications
G or the criteria as laid for tlleir appointment as lecturers in the University. We
do not find any infirmity in Ille orders of the Executive Committee of Ille
University not recommending Ille appellants for substantive appointment as
lecturers in the University. These appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.

R.P. Appeals dismissed.
H