JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - Narendra Kumar Agnihotri, the petitioner, was appointed as Head of the Degree Department in Geography in M.M.H. College, Ghaziabad in the year 1967, which was affiliated at the time with Meerut University under Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act, 1956. In August, 1976, the grades of the teachers employed in the Degree Colleges were revised with effect from 1st April, 1966. As a result of the revision of the pay scales, the post of Head of the Degree Department was abolished. As a consequence of the revision of the grades, the then existing Heads of the Degree Departments were given option either to continue in the old grade of Rs. 400-700 or to opt new revised grade of Rs. 400-800. As per rules laid down by the State Government, the posts in the said grade were designated as the Lecturers (Senior Scales). The petitioner also opted for the grade of Senior Lecturers, F since the said grade was higher than the one which he was previously getting and thereby his designation became the Lecturers (Senior Scales). As the senior most Lecturer in the Geography Department of the College, the petitioner was also required to look after the administrative work. The M.M.H, College was a Post-Graduate College only in those subjects for which the University had approved for the Post-Graduate teaching. That College was not recognised for imparting education in Geography for the Post-Graduate Degrees and, as such, the said College was not a Post-Graduate College, as far as the Department of Geography was concerned, at that time. 2. The University, however, granted recognition to the M.M.H. College, Ghaziabad for Post-Graduate teachings in Geography vide its letter no.AF-7(ii)/4295, dated 27-1-1973. This recognition was, however, granted subject to fulfilment of certain conditions laid down by the University in its order granting its recognition. By the letter dated February 12, 1973, the College Authorities communicated their acceptance of the conditions prescribed by the University. On receipt of acceptance of the College Authorities, the Chancellor of the University accorded approval on 18 4-74. This was followed by permission from the University to the College to start Post-Graduate classes from July, 1974 in Geography subject on April 20 and May 10, 1974. The College Authorities issued two advertisements for appointment of a Reader for the Post-Graduate classes. The petitioner applied for the said post. This was followed by permission from the University to the College to start Post-Graduate classes from July, 1974 in Geography subject on April 20 and May 10, 1974. The College Authorities issued two advertisements for appointment of a Reader for the Post-Graduate classes. The petitioner applied for the said post. It may be noted here that the creation of the post of a Reader was a condition precedent for enabling the College to start the Post-Graduate class as per provisions contained in the Act and the Statute. The petitioner was informed by the College Management for interview which was to be held on 30th June, 1974. He, thereafter, received another letter dated 20th June, 1974, informing him that since he did not possess Ph. D. Degree in Geography he was not qualified or eligible to be appointed as a Reader and that he was not required to appear before the Selection Committee. Consequently, the petitioner did not appear before the Selection Committee. The interview, thereafter, took place on 30th June, 1974. The Selection Committee for the appointment of Reader in Geography was constituted of six persons. The Committee anonymously recommended the names of three persons. Dr. B. B. Singh, respondent no. 4, was kept at serial no. 1. A letter dated 2nd July, 1974 was, thereafter, issued to Dr. B.B. Singh informing him that he had been selected for the post of Reader in the Post-Graduate Geography Department subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and that he could join his duties on August 1, 1974. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner taken in the writ petition is that he was qualified for being appointed as Reader in the Post-Graduate Degree and that he had been wrongfully not permitted to appear before the Selection Committee. 4. As pointed above, the College was affiliated to the Meerut University under the Meerut University Act, 1965. At the time when the petitioner was appointed as Head in the Degree Lecturers Section, the necessary qualifications were prescribed under the Agra University Statutes. As such, the petitioner was appointed in the College as the Professor and Head of the Degree Department. Subsequently, the qualifications had been prescribed by the Ordinances which had been framed under the Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act, 1965, and the Statutes framed thereunder. According to the. As such, the petitioner was appointed in the College as the Professor and Head of the Degree Department. Subsequently, the qualifications had been prescribed by the Ordinances which had been framed under the Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act, 1965, and the Statutes framed thereunder. According to the. qualifications prescribed by the Meerut University, a candidate was required to possess a Ph. D. Degree for being appointed as a Reader. In 1973, the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (Act No. 10 of 1973) came into force. Section 50(1) of the U. P. State Universities Act provided that so long as the First Statutes of the University had not been made by the State Government, the Statutes as in force immediately before the commencement of the U.P. State Universities Act, in so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, would continue in force. Since the State Government had not framed First Statutes and the Ordinance frame under the Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act, 1965, were still in force, the qualifications required to be possessed for appointment on a post of Reader continued to be governed by the Ordinances framed under the old Act. The qualification laid down by the Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act for appointment as Readers in Post-Graduate Department was a follows : "(c) (i) Readers in Post-Graguate Departments. - First Class Master's Degree with Ph. D. Degree in the subject or; Second Class Master's degree with Ph. D. Degree and 5 years experience of teaching Post-Graduate classes or seven years experience partly as Lecturer (Sr Scale) in the Degree Department, with at least two years of teaching P. G classes with subject or at least 9 years research experience in a Research Institute recognised by the University or the State or the Central Government." It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he did not possess the qualification required by the Ordinance for being appointed as a Reader in the Post Graduate Degree Department. The contention raised on his behalf was that the Scheme envisaged in the Report of the University Grants Commission for the year 1966-67, which had been accepted by the State Government, did not require a Ph. D. Degree in the subject, respondents had no power to refuse to interview the petitioner. 5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of substance. D. Degree in the subject, respondents had no power to refuse to interview the petitioner. 5. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of substance. As provided by the Kanpur-Meerut Universities Act, 1965, this appointment of the teachers had to be governed by the provision made in the Act and the Ordinances framed thereunder. After coming into existence of the relevant Ordinances, no appointment could be made by the affiliated Colleges or be approved by the University on the post of Reader unless the appointee possessed the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the relevant Ordinance. Under Section 10(4) of the Kanpur Meerut Universities Act, 1965 and also Section 13(i)(iv) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Vice-Chancellor has been vested with the powers to exercise general supervision and control over affairs of the University including its affiliated and associated colleges. Hi has been further require to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of the Act, the Statute and the Ordinances. In the exercise of this power that the University issued direction cancelling the interview which had been issued to the petitioner by the College. The University was within its right to ask the College to cancel the interview letter of the petitioner inasmuch as he did not possess even the minimum qualifications as prescribed under the Ordinance in existence which required a Ph. D. as must for the appointment on the post of Reader for teaching the Post-Graduate classes. 6. For the prosecution that the qualifications laid down by the Ordinances did not apply to the petitioner, reliance had been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Services Class II Objectors and others, ( AIR 1974 SC 2184 ]. In that case, the question was whether the State Government was entitled to superimpose additional conditions on the Scheme which had been framed by the University Grant Commission for the benefit of the Lecturers and Professors in affiliated Colleges. The University Grants Commission recommended a revision of any scales for various -categories of teachers who were broadly decided into two classes - "University teachers" and teachers in affiliated Government and non- Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges." The recommendations of the University Grants Commission were accepted by the State of Maharashtra. The University Grants Commission recommended a revision of any scales for various -categories of teachers who were broadly decided into two classes - "University teachers" and teachers in affiliated Government and non- Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges." The recommendations of the University Grants Commission were accepted by the State of Maharashtra. It, however, did not dispute that the respondents 2 to 11 were qualified to be placed in the pay scale demanded by them but the contention was that respondents 2 to 11 belonged to Class II Educational Services and, as such, without being selected in consultation with the Public Service Commissioner and brought to Class 1, they were not entitled to : the benefits of the recommendation. of the Pay Commission. The Supreme Court did not find any merit in the stated of the State Government. It held ] that as the respondents 2 to 11 possessed the requisite qualifications and expert- Mice for being placed in the higher pay scales, they were entitled to the same under the report of the University Grants Commission which was accepted by the Government of India arid was adopted by the Government of Maharashtra. From the facts, thus, it would appear that the controversy raised in that decision was altogether different. It was not called upon to consider the question which arises for decision in this case. Before us, the problem is whether the petitioner could be considered for appointments as a Reader despite the fact that be did not possess the qualifications laid down by the Ordinances framed under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. The question of appointment is altogether different from receiving benefits of the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission. The two matters cannot be mixed up and confused In fact, in the Supreme Court case relied upon by the petitioner, itself the observations made were that : - "As stated by the High Court whether respondents 2 to 11 should, as a consequence of up-grading of the pay scale, be placed in Class Educational Services and whether that were entitled to the other benefits available to Class 1 Officers, is an entirely separate matter which the State Government will be at liberty to decide in accordance with the relevant rules and procedure." 7. From what we have said above, it appears to us that the recommendations of the University Grants Commission had limited application. Under the recommendations, those who possessed the qualifications laid down by the same, could be entitled to get the benefit provided by it. It was not concerned with the question of appointment of teachers. 8. The argument of promissory estoppel made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and does not require elaborate discussion for its decision. The principle of promissory coopel is not available to the petitioner in this case. The basic thing required to be fulfilled is that a perms seeking its benefit must have altered his position to his prejudice which he would have not done but for the representation. In the instant case, the ques-lion of petitioner's suffering on account or representation does not arise. The Ordinances had been framed in exercise of legislative powers. As held in M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, (AIR 1980 SC 1280], there can be no promissory estoppel against the exercise of legislative power of the State The period of University Grants Commission was five years. Consequently, it ceased to operate in 1971. The selection in the present case took place in 1971. Even if the argument of the learned counsel was accepted, the recommendation could not have operation after 1971. 9. The next submission made by the learned counsel was that as by the G.O dated 24th July, 1974( the Universities had been restraned from making appointments of Readers; the appointment of respondent 4, Dr. B.B. Singh, was invalid. This submission also has no substance. This Government order does not prohibit the University or affiliated colleges from making appointment on-the post which had been created before 24th July, 1974. It provides that new posts of Readers were not to be acted after 24th July, 1974. From the counter-affidavit of Prahlad Swarup, Assistant Registrar (Affiliation), Meerut University, it would appear that the post on which respondent 4 was appoint ed, was created must before the aforesaid Government Order dated 24th July 1974. The aforesaid G. O. which was issued on 30th July, 1974, did not require the University to abolish the already created posts of Readers. Respondent no. 4 had been interviewed on 30th June, 1974 and he had also been selected on the same date. The aforesaid G. O. which was issued on 30th July, 1974, did not require the University to abolish the already created posts of Readers. Respondent no. 4 had been interviewed on 30th June, 1974 and he had also been selected on the same date. Subsequently, an appointment letter was issued in pursuance of which the charge was taken over on the 1st of August, 1974. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel that respondent could not be appointed on the post of Readers due to the G. O. dated 24th July, 1974 cannot be accepted. It may be noted here that the petitioner himself had applied on the post for which respondent 4 was subsequently found suitable. The plea, of respondent 4's appointment on the aforesaid post, appears to us to be mala fide. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.