( 1 ) THE short question that falls for decision in this petition under Art. 226 is, whether the Syndicate could retrospectively recognise a Professor, reader or Lecturer of a constituent college under S 28 of the Bangalore university Act, 1964. ( 2 ) FOR immediate reference, sub-secs (4) and (5) of S. 28 of the San- galore University Act are set out below : ( 3 ) THE facts leading up to the petition are these: The Petitioner and respondent 2 are lecturers in SLN College of Arts and Commerce It - is an affiliated College of the Bangalore University. On 19-7-1968, Respondent 2 was appointed as lecturer by the Governing Body of the College. On 24-7-1968, the petitioner was appointed as lecturer. Sec 28 (4) of the bangalore University Act provides for constitution of the Board for the purpose of recognising teachers of Constituent Colleges. The rrecognition is a necessary requirement to enable the teacher to teach in the College. The Board so constituted interviewed the petitioner and on its recommendation, the Syndicate of the University recognised him as a lecturer. Respondent 2. did not, however, get an immediate like opportunity for being considered for recognition In July 1971, he was interviewed by the Board which recommended his case to the Syndicate. The Syndicate by its resolution dt. 4/5-10-1973 has recognised him as Lecturer in Commerce from the date of his appointment, i. e. , from 19-7-1968. The petitioner apprehends that consequent on the retrospective recognition, respondent 2 would become senior to him, and therefore, has approached this Court for a declaration that the Syndicate has no power to accord retrospective recognition to the teacher of any constituent college. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. VENKATARANGA lyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon Ordinance 22 in support of the above contention. It provides that no teacher shall conduct teaching in a Constituent College of the university unless he is recognised for the purpose by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Board of Appointments constituted under S. 28 (4) of the Bangalore University Act, 1964. He further urged that prior to their recognition, the teachers would be in the status of local candidates and their antecedent service before the date of recognition should not therefore count for seniority. ( 5 ) IN my view, it is difficult to accept the contentions. He further urged that prior to their recognition, the teachers would be in the status of local candidates and their antecedent service before the date of recognition should not therefore count for seniority. ( 5 ) IN my view, it is difficult to accept the contentions. It is true that Ordinance 22 provides that unless the, teacher is recognised for the purpose of teaching, by the Syndicate on the racqmmendation of the Board of Appointments constituted under S. 28 (4), he shall not conduct teaching but in this context a reference to Ordinance 23 is necessary'. It states that the Vice-Chancellor may, pending recognition of a teacher, permit him to conduct teaching for a period not exceding one year provided the teacher possesses the required qualification It means, pending recognition one cculd teach. It is, as I gee it, inevitable in many cases as the appointment of a teacher is different from his recognition. They cannot be done simultaneously, as they are required to be done by two different authorities. S. 28 (4) docs not provide for appointment of a teacher. It deals with recognition only. The recognition means acknowledgment of validity or acknowledgment of something in existence, and in the context, it means the! recognition of the valid appointment of a teacher. In the, very nature of these things, the recognition of a teacher could always be subsequent to his appointment. The Syndicate, in my view, is not precluded from recognising a teacher either prospectively or retrospectively, in the absence of a statutory limitation to the contrary. No such limitation is found in sub-sees (4) and (5) of Section 28 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE: contention that respondent 2 was in the status of a local candidate before his recognition has no merit. The conception of a local candidate cannot be imported to the matters of appointments of teachers in Constituent colleges. Local candidates as generally understood, are those, who are appointed not in accordance with the Cadre Rules of the concerned dept. That conception has no relevance to the appointment of respondent 2 or the petitioner. Both of them were appointed in accordance with law by the Governing Body of their College, and both of them had the requisite qualifications prescribed for the posts. That conception has no relevance to the appointment of respondent 2 or the petitioner. Both of them were appointed in accordance with law by the Governing Body of their College, and both of them had the requisite qualifications prescribed for the posts. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner next relied upon Rule 211 of the Bangalore University Employees (Teachers) Seniority Rules, 1972 in support of his contention that respondent!; 2 was in the status of a local candidate before his recognition- Rule 211 provides :"nothing in the Statute contained in this Chapter shall be applicable to any person appointed as a local candidate so long as he, is treated as such. "reliance was also placed on S. 2 (9) of the Bangalore; University Act, which defines 'a teacher to mean a, person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose cxf imparting instruction in the University or in any college. ( 8 ) THE above, Rules, in my view, are, not applicable, to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent 2 may be teachers as defined under S. 2 (a) of the Act, but they are not teachers employed by the University. The said Rules are applicable, to the teachers who are employed by the University and not to the teachers employed in the Constituent colleges. ' ( 9 ) THE last contention urged was that the Syndicate ought not to have retrospectively recognised respondent 2 when the Board of Appointments which has interviewed the petitioner, did not recommend for his retrospective recognition as a Lecturer. ( 10 ) IT is true that the Board of Appointments has recommended respondent 2 for recognition without specifically stating the date, on which it has got to be done ). But the Syndicate was not precluded from recognising respondent 2 from the date of his appointment. It was for the Syndicate to take a decision from what date) a teacher should be recognised and the board of Appointments was only a recommendatory body, and its recommendation was not binding on the Syndicate, ( 11 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, i make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .