JUDGMENT M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petitioner Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks reliefs for the petitioner in the following words :- (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus or other suitable writ or direction, directing the respondents not to fill in the post occupied by the petitioner as Lecturer in the Zoology department and to issue a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as lecturer in the zoology department of Hindu College, Moradabad. (b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or other suitable writ or direction, directing the respondent No. 1, Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter of approval of the petitioner at an early date. (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus or other suitable writ or direction, directing the chancellor to decide the representation of the petitioner forthwith. (d) Such other writ or writs, orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The Hindu College Moradabad, in 1970, was a Post-Graduate Degree College affiliated to Agra University. The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on 4th September, 1970, His temporary appointment was from 9th September, 1970 to 15th March, 1971. There was a break, and again on 3rd August, 1971, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Zoology by means of a fresh appointment letter on a temporary basis and this appointment was for the duration from 3-8-1971 to 15-3-1972. In the next session again a temporary appointment was given to the petitioner which lasted from 1st September, 1973 to 31st March, 1974. In the academic session 1974-75, in pursuance of an advertisement published in the newspaper, lecturers were appointed in the Zoology Department and other Departments and the petitioner was also appointed as a lecturer on a temporary post in the Department of Zoology and this appointment was to last upto 15th March, 1975. It is claimed that this appointment was made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Dr. O.P. Raghuvanshi was a teacher in the Zoology Department in the said College and he held a permanent post. He resigned sometime in March, 1975, and, thereafter, the petitioner began to set up a claim that he should be held to be entitled to the said permanent post formerly held by Dr. Dr. O.P. Raghuvanshi was a teacher in the Zoology Department in the said College and he held a permanent post. He resigned sometime in March, 1975, and, thereafter, the petitioner began to set up a claim that he should be held to be entitled to the said permanent post formerly held by Dr. O.P. Raghuvanshi. It seems that the petitioner approached the Committee of Management with the aforesaid claim and the aforesaid Committee passed the following resolution on 16th July, 1975:- "The application of Sri P. K. Gupta of the Zoology department requesting conversion of his temporary appointment into one on probation was read and considered. Resolved that the Management has no objection to the conversion if the Vice- Chancellor approves the same and Government pays his salary in accordance therewith (w.e.f. the date of approval by the V.C.)." 3. It seems that the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 had come into force sometime in September, 1973. It was subsequently replaced by the U.P. Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act 1974. The aforesaid educational institution stood affiliated to the Rohilkhand University. Bareilly and, therefore, the petitioner took the claim along with the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee to the Vice-Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. It has been averred in paragraph 25 of the petition that the petitioner was told by the said Vice-Chancellor that the petitioner's claim was not acceptable to the latter, and that the permanent post was going to be advertised and a fresh selection would take place. The petitioner, thereafter, represented to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the aforesaid Act, but the said authority rejected the said representation on 5th January, 1976. A copy of the order passed by the Chancellor is Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit. It seems that even before the Chancellor passed the aforesaid order, this petition had been filed in this Court on 12th September, 1975. 4. The petitioner's claim is that in consequence of the resignation of Dr. O.P. Raghuvanshi since he (the petitioner) was working on a temporary vacancy in the department, he became entitled to the said permanent post by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 31 (3) of he aforesaid Act. Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel , for the petitioner, addressed us at length on what he contended to be the true scope of the said provision contained in S. 31 (3) (b) of the Act. 5. Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel , for the petitioner, addressed us at length on what he contended to be the true scope of the said provision contained in S. 31 (3) (b) of the Act. 5. For the facility of reference, and discussion, the aforesaid provision contained in Section 31 (3) (b) is reproduced below :- "Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a Selection Committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent not post in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post of same cadre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department, then unless the Executive Council or the Management, as the case may be, decides to terminate his services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee: Provided that this clause shall not apply unless the teacher concerned holds the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of such substantive appointment, and he has served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment made after reference to a Selection Committee : Provided further that appointment in a substantive capacity under this clause of a teacher who had served, before such appointment, continuously for a period of less than two years, shall be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply accordingly." 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the true interpretation of the said provision, it should be held that when the permanent post held by Dr. Raghuvanshi fell vacant, the petitioner became entitled to the said post because he had been working for more than six months and his appointment was as a result of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, which recommendation was accepted by the Managing Committee. Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the University, has contended that the interpretation which Sri G.N. Verma has placed on the aforesaid provision is not the correct one. Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the University, has contended that the interpretation which Sri G.N. Verma has placed on the aforesaid provision is not the correct one. It seems that apart from the said aspect of the matter, there can be little doing (doubt?) that in view of the First Proviso to the aforesaid provision, the petitioner will not be found to be entitled to any relief from the Court. The Proviso is clear that the teacher concerned who is desirous of getting an appointment in a substantive capacity must possess the prescribed qualifications for the post In question and he must possess such qualifications at the time of the substantive appointment. 7. In view of these provisions contained in Section 50 of the said Act, it cannot be disputed that the statutes framed by the Agra University will govern the case of the petitioner. Statute 5-C of Chapter XVIII prescribed the qualifications which should be possessed be the teachers of Post-Graduate Classes. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly got only a second class in his M.Sc. and on the date on which he says he was entitled to be appointed in a substantive capacity to the permanent post, he did not possess any Research Decree. Sri, G.N. Verma contended that the petitioner was doing his Research work and succeeded in obtaining his Ph. D. Degree sometime in 1977. However, it should be seen that the petitioner's claim is that in March, 1975, when Dr. Raghuvanshi resigned he became entitled to the substantive appointment and the resolution of the Managing Committee, which the petitioner claims is in the nature of his appointment in the substantive capacity by the Managing Committee, was also passed some-time in July, 1975. Therefore, the fact that subsequently such qualification was obtained in 1977 cannot help the petitioner. At the relevant time undoubtedly, he did not possess the qualifications which have been laid down in the aforesaid statute. 8. In view of this position, it is really not necessary to examine the contention of Sri G.N. Verma in respect of the true scope of the main part of Section 31 (3). However, since the post has been filled and Sri Naithani contested the interpretation which the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed, we could like to express in Brief our opinion. However, since the post has been filled and Sri Naithani contested the interpretation which the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed, we could like to express in Brief our opinion. In our view, the petitioner cannot claim that he was entitled to the post of Dr. Raghuvanshi ,on the ground that it fell vacant and that he was working then in a temporary capacity for more than six months. In our view, the petitioner's case is really covered by the first contingency where it is laid down that if a teacher is appointed (after reference to the Selection Committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post......... Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed to a temporary post, but the said post was not converted into a permanent post and therefore, the petitioner's case is not covered by Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. In our view, the subsequent expression `falls vacant' cannot be applied to a case of appointment of a teacher to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months which contingency is covered by the earlier portion of the said clause. 9. Sri Naithani further emphasised that in the instant case, there was no appointment by the Managing Committee of the petitioner in a substantive capacity such as is covered in the aforesaid clause (b) of Section 31 (3). Rather an extraordinary type of recommendation was made by the Managing Committee and the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee, which has been reproduced above, cannot be said to be an appointment of the petitioner in a substantive capacity for the post held by Dr. Raghuvanshi. We feel much force in the contention of Sri Naithani. However, it is really not necessary to say much about this aspect of the matter because the petitioner has failed in his effort to get the relief in view of the First Proviso to Section 31 (3) (b). 10. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.