JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition filed by Dr. Miss Raj Kumari Sharma under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor, which was communicated to the petitioner by the letter of the Principal, Multanimal Modi Post-Graduate Degree College, Modinagar, dated 13th of Sept. 1975, the order of the Chancellor dated 9th of March 1976 and the subsequent communication of the Secretary of the College dated 28th of July, 1977, intimating the fact that the order dated 13th Sept. 1975 stands. In substance the challenge is to the order of the Vice-Chancellor disapproving the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Sanskrit and the order passed by the Chancellor on the representation made by the petitioner against the order of the Vice-Chancellor disapproving her appointment. 2. Multanimal Modi Post-Graduate Degree College, Modinagar, is an affiliated College of the Meerut University. In the year 1975 a post of Lecturer in Sanskrit fell vacant in the College and as such on the 7th June 1975 the College advertised for filling the post. The advertisement was made in the Hindustan Times of the 7th of June 1975. The minimum qualifications in the said advertisement were a 1st Class Master's Degree or a Second Class Master's Degree with average second class career taking into account the results of High School, Intermediate and first degree examination and Ph.D. in the subject. The petitioner made an application for appointment on the said post, A Selection Committee was constituted under the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act. The Selection Committee met on 1st Aug. 1975 under the Chairmanship of one Dr. M. R. Jain. 25 candidates were called for interview for the said post of Lecturer. Four candidates did not turn up for interview. The Committee interviewed the rest of the candidates and unanimously selected Dr. Miss Raj Kumari Sharma, the petitioner, and recommended her appointment as a lecturer in Sanskrit on one year's probation. The Committee further made out a waiting list consisting of (1) Dr. Dharamvir and (2) Dr. Sushma. A letter of appointment was alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on the 1st of Aug. 1975 by Dr. M. R. Jain, the Manager of the Committee of Management, who was also the Chairman of the Selection Committee. 3. On 11th of Aug. Dharamvir and (2) Dr. Sushma. A letter of appointment was alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on the 1st of Aug. 1975 by Dr. M. R. Jain, the Manager of the Committee of Management, who was also the Chairman of the Selection Committee. 3. On 11th of Aug. 1975 the Principal of the above-mentioned College wrote to the Meerut University seeking approval of the Vice-Chancellor to the appointment of the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor did not approve the appointment of the petitioner, as well as that of Dr. Dharamvir. The Vice-Chancellor, however, approved the appointment of Dr. Sushma, who was second in the waiting list. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated to the Principal of the College by a letter of the University dated 11th Sept. 1975. On receipt of this communication from the University the Principal of the College communicated the said order to the petitioner, which is one of the orders which has been impugned in the present petition. 4. The petitioner filed a representation under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act before the Chancellor, Meerut University. The Chancellor by his order dated 9th March 1976 rejected the petitioner's representation. The Chancellor was also of the view that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications as required under Statute 10 of the First Statute of the University which came into force from Aug. 1, 1975. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition No. 10661 of 1975 in this Court challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor as well as the order of the Chancellor. The petition came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on the 26th of July 1977. The counsel for the petitioner in the said petition stated that as the statutes have been recently amended the petitioner proposed to file a review petition before the Chancellor and as such the said petition was not pressed and it was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Chancellor on 26th July 1977. The review petition was, however, dismissed by the Chancellor on 7th Sept., 1977 on the ground that there was no provision for review after the amendment of Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and as such the review petition was not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Chancellor on 26th July 1977. The review petition was, however, dismissed by the Chancellor on 7th Sept., 1977 on the ground that there was no provision for review after the amendment of Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and as such the review petition was not maintainable. After the review application of the petitioner was dismissed the petitioner has now again filed the present petition in this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the 1st of Aug. 1975 when the petitioner was unanimously selected by the Selection Committee she possessed the minimum qualifications required for the post of a Lecturer in Sanskrit and as such the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor as well as the Chancellor suffer from a manifest error of law. It was further urged that even if the petitioner did not technically possess the minimum qualifications as required then too the Selection Committee having selected her would be deemed to have waived the requisite qualifications. In the alternative, it was urged that since the advertisement for the said post was made prior to 1st of Aug. 1975 the appointment of the petitioner could not be disapproved on the basis of qualifications which came into force on the 1st of Aug. 1975 and as such the appointment of the petitioner was valid. The petitioner has further relied on Section 2 of the U. P. State Universities First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) (5th) Amendment, 1977 by which sub-cl. 2-B has been added to Statute 11.13. Cl. 2-B lays down that a candidate who has been selected by a Selection Committee constituted under the U. P. State Universities Act and such selection is pending approval of the Vice-Chancellor since 1975 then the qualifications laid down in the Statutes, Ordinances or Government orders in force immediately before such date shall apply. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner admittedly fulfilled the qualifications prior to 1st of Aug. 1975 and as such she was entitled to the benefit of this cl. (2-B). 6. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner admittedly fulfilled the qualifications prior to 1st of Aug. 1975 and as such she was entitled to the benefit of this cl. (2-B). 6. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present proceedings it would be necessary to refer briefly to the Legislative history resulting in the promulgation of the various First Statutes of the Universities laying down the qualifications of the teachers. 7. Initially in the State of Uttar Pradesh separate Acts governed the various Universities of the State. The law relating to certain Universities was consolidated and the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 was promulgated. Section 50 of the said Act provided that so long as the first statutes are not made under this Act the statutes as in force immediately before the commencement of the Act in so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act were to remain in force. As such the first statutes of the Universities which were covered by the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973, continued to remain in force. In Meerut University also the statutes which were existing continued in force. On the 25th of July 1975 the Governor was pleased to make the first statutes of the Universities of Allahabad, Lucknow, Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur, Meerut, Kumaun, Garhwal, Avadh and Rohilkhand, Kashi Vidyapith and Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. These first statutes were called the U.P. State Universities First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scale of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers), 1975. They came into force with effect from 1st of Aug. 1975. Statute 10 of the said Statutes laid down the qualifications for lecturers in affiliated and associated colleges. The minimum qualifications which were required for the post of a Lecturer in the faculty of Arts were (a) a consistently good academic record with first or high second class (B) Master's degree in the subject concerned or an equivalent degree of a foreign university in such subject; and (b) M. phill. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work. The expression 'consistently good record' was to have the same meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to statute 8 which laid down that the candidate shall be deemed to have 'consistent good academic record' if he has secured at least first class or high second class throughout his academic career leading to the Master's degree, or any degree recognised as equivalent thereto. It may be noted here that under this Statute no power was conferred on the selection committee for relaxing any of the minimum requirements. 8. The First Statutes mentioned above, which came into force from 1st of Aug. 1975, were amended on the 20th Oct. 1975. Statutes 8, 9 and 10 of the First Statutes were substituted. These amendments were brought about by U. P. State Universities First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) (First Amendment), 1975. Cl. 1, sub-cl. (2) specifically provided that no selection made between the 1st of Aug. 1975 and the 20th of Oct. 1975 on the basis of the principal statutes as they stood immediately before the amendment of these statutes shall be affected by these statutes. The result was that so far as the petitioner was concerned her selection having been made on 1st of Aug. 1975 it was not affected by these amended statutes. Thereafter on the 20th of April 1977 the Governor was pleased to make the First Statutes of the University of Meerut. These related not only to age of superannuation, scales of pay and qualifications of teachers but also to other matters. By cl. 1.02 sub-cl. (2) the First Statutes mentioned above, which came into effect from 1st of Aug. 1975, stood repealed. The qualifications required for the appointment of a lecturer in an affiliated college were laid down in statute 11.13. By Statute 11.13 sub-cl. (3) power has been conferred on the selection committee to relax the requirement relating to more than 54 per cent marks in the Master's degree. It was, however, further provided in statute 11.03 that no selection of a teacher made between Aug. 1, 1975 and Oct. 20, 1975 shall be affected by these statutes. By Statute 11.13 sub-cl. (3) power has been conferred on the selection committee to relax the requirement relating to more than 54 per cent marks in the Master's degree. It was, however, further provided in statute 11.03 that no selection of a teacher made between Aug. 1, 1975 and Oct. 20, 1975 shall be affected by these statutes. In effect, therefore, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of these statutes or the provision of relaxation given in these statutes. Statute 11.13 of the First Statutes of the Meerut University was again amended by a notification dated 20th June 1977 and after cl. (2) cls. (2-A) and (2-B) had been inserted. Cl. 3 of the statutes was substituted. Cl. (2-B) and cl. (3), which are relevant for the present case, are quoted below:- "(2-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in these statutes, if a candidate was selected by the selection committee constituted under cl. (c) or cl. (d) of sub-sec. (4) of S. 3l of the Act and such selection is pending approval of the Vice-Chancellor since 1975 (the date of enforcement of statutes laying down revised qualifications of teacher of degree colleges, (other than Principal). or April 20, 1977 (the date of enforcement of Statutes laying down revised qualifications of Principals of degree Colleges), as the case may be, then the qualifications laid down in any statutes, ordinances or Government orders in force immediately before such date shall apply." "(3) If a candidate holds a doctorate degree in the subject concerned the selection committee may relax any of the requirements in the cls. (1) and (2)." 9. By cl. (2-B) the selections which were held on 1st of Aug. 1975 have been preserved and the amendment of statute 11.13 does not in any manner affect the said selection. It may be stated here that since no amendment has been made in statute 11.03 sub-cl. (3) of statute 11.13 providing for relaxation did not apply to a selection which was held on 1st of Aug. 1975. 10. On a reading of the various statutes and their amendments made from time to time it is clear that the selections which were held on 1st of Aug. 1975 would be governed by the first statutes which came into force from 1st of Aug. 1975 and the candidates selected on that date will have to fulfil the qualifications laid down in those statutes. 1975 would be governed by the first statutes which came into force from 1st of Aug. 1975 and the candidates selected on that date will have to fulfil the qualifications laid down in those statutes. The subsequent amendment did not at all affect their position. Therefore, the main question, which is to be considered in the present case, is as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications laid down by the First Statutes which came into effect from 1st of Aug. 1975. The necessary requirements of the First Statutes which were in force on 1st Aug. 1975 required the candidate to have a first or a high second class throughout from High School up to the Master's degree. Annexure CA 1 of the counter affidavit of Sri S. P. Goel, Head of the Political Science Department, Post-Graduate College, Modi Nagar. district Ghaziabad, who filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, is the application of the petitioner in which the petitioner has given her academic qualifications. The petitioner got second division in the High School with 47 per cent marks, second division in the Intermediate with 49 per cent marks, second division in B. A. with 49 per cent marks and second division in M. A. Sanskrit with 53 per cent marks. The word 'high' has not been defined in the First statutes which came into force on 1-8-1975 but the meaning of this expression has been made clear by the First amendment of the statutes which came into effect from 20th Oct. 1975 mentioned above. The word 'high second class' has been made equivalent to more than 54 per cent marks. Admittedly the petitioner had less than 54 per cent marks in the Master's degree, the Bachelor's degree, Intermediate as well as High School and as such the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum qualifications for being appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no manifest error of law in the order of the Vice-Chancellor or that of the Chancellor on this ground. 11. The provision of relaxation, as discussed above, did not apply to a selection which has been made on the 1st of Aug. 1975 and as such the selection committee had no jurisdiction to relax the minimum qualifications as laid down in the First Statutes, which came into force from 1st Aug. 1975. 11. The provision of relaxation, as discussed above, did not apply to a selection which has been made on the 1st of Aug. 1975 and as such the selection committee had no jurisdiction to relax the minimum qualifications as laid down in the First Statutes, which came into force from 1st Aug. 1975. In any case in order to satisfy ourselves we directed the college to produce the original minutes of the meeting of the selection committee which was held on 1st of Aug. 1975. We have examined the minutes ourselves and we find that the selection committee did not at all relax the minimum qualifications as laid down by the First Statutes and as such the petitioner's contention in this regard has no merit. 12. As stated above in the alternative the petitioner has further contended that since the post was advertised on 7th of June 1975 and since she fulfilled the qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement her appointment was valid and the fact that on 1st of Aug. 1975 the qualifications were changed would not affect her selection. We do not agree with this submission of the petitioner. The first statutes came into force from 1st of Aug. 1975. They were published in the Gazette of 25th July 1975. The selection which was to be made from 1st of Aug. 1975 has to be in conformity with the statutes which came into effect from 1st of August 1975. No right can accrue in favour of the petitioner merely because in the instant case the advertisement was made on the 7th of June 1975. The relevant date for determining the legality of an appointment is the date of selection and if on the date of selection a particular candidate does not fulfil the minimum qualifications he is not entitled for appointment on the said post. In the instant case the relevant date was the 1st of Aug. 1975 when the selection committee met and since the First Statutes had come into force on that date it was necessary that the candidates fulfilled the minimum qualifications as required by the First Statutes. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the advertisement did not confer any right on the petitioner. 13. 1975 when the selection committee met and since the First Statutes had come into force on that date it was necessary that the candidates fulfilled the minimum qualifications as required by the First Statutes. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the advertisement did not confer any right on the petitioner. 13. The further contention of the petitioner that First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) (Fifth Amendment), 1977 would apply is also without force. This amendment does not apply to those Universities where the main First Statutes have been framed and the provisions for age of superannuation, scales of pay and qualifications of teachers have been included in the said statutes and First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) 1975 have been repealed. No amendment can be made to a statute which has already been repealed. When the first statutes of Meerut University were framed on 20th of April 1977 the First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) 1975 were repealed. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take benefit of this fifth Amendment. Hence this submission is also without merit. 14. In the impugned order of the Chancellor dated 9th March 1976 the Chancellor has rejected the representation of the petitioner also on the ground that her appointment itself was invalid. The letter of appointment was issued on 1st of Aug. 1975 by Sri M. R. Jain, who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It was alleged in the petition that he was also the Manager of the Managing Committee. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it has been categorically asserted in paragraph 11 that Sri M. R. Jain was not the Manager of the Managing Committee on 1st of Aug. 1975 and he was not authorised by the committee of Management to issue any appointment letter to the petitioner, he was only the Chairman of the Selection Committee. This averment in the counter affidavit has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and as such we accept the version given on behalf of respondent No. 3. 1975 and he was not authorised by the committee of Management to issue any appointment letter to the petitioner, he was only the Chairman of the Selection Committee. This averment in the counter affidavit has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and as such we accept the version given on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since Sri M. R. Jain was only the Chairman of the selection committee and was not acting on behalf of the Managing Committee of the college the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was wholly invalid. The finding of the Chancellor in this regard is not in any manner vitiated in law. 15. In the result the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.