JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - These two petitions are directed against the order of the Vice-chancellor, Kanpur University, dated 16th May, 1975 disapproving the petitioners appointment as lecturers and also the order of the committee of Management dated 29th May, 1975 terminating their services. 2. Konch Mahavidyalaya, Konch, district Jalaun was granted recognition to teach degree classes in the Session 1973-74 by the Kanpur University, to which it was affiliated. The management committee of the College issued an advertisement inviting applications for the appointment of lecturers in several subjects including History and Hindi. A selection committee was constituted and on its recommendations the committee of management appointed Surendra Narain Saxena as lecturer in Hindi. It further appointed Ram Sajiwan Shukla as lecturer in History. Both the petitioners were appointed son probation subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The management forwarded the papers to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 16th May, 1975 refused to grant approval to their appointment. The management of the college thereupon issued an order on 29th May, 1975 terminating their appointments in pursuance of the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Aggrieved Surendra Narain Saxena and Ram Sajiwan Shukla both have filed these two petitions challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor as well as the order of the committee of management terminating their services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners appointment was not subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor as no such approval was necessary under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The committee of management committed error in seeking the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, it further acted illegally in terminating the petitioners service in pursuance of the order of the Vice-Chancellor refusing to grant approval to the petitioners appointments, in order to appreciation this contention, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of the Act as it then existed. 4. Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 regulates the appointments of teachers. Section 31 as it was originally enacted did not require the committee of management of an affiliated college to obtain approval for the appointment of teachers in the college. The committee of management of an affiliated college was authorised to appoint teachers on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Section 31 as it was originally enacted did not require the committee of management of an affiliated college to obtain approval for the appointment of teachers in the college. The committee of management of an affiliated college was authorised to appoint teachers on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Sub-section (4) of Section 31 was amended by the U.P. Act No. 49 of 1974, which came into force on 25th September 1974, After that amendment sub-section (11) of Section 31 of the Act provided that in the case of affiliated and associated college the management of the college may appoint teachers only after the Vice-Chancellor was satisfied that the candidate possessed minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post and the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teachers was duly followed. The Vice-Chancellor was, thus, invested with the power to satisfy himself regarding the appointment of the teacher by the committee of management of an affiliated college for the first time on 25th September, 1974 but before that date any appointment made by the committee of management of an affiliated college was not subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor as contemplated by Section 31 (11) of the Act. The principal Act was again amended in 1977. The amended sub-section (11) of Section 31 of the Act lays down that no teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor is obtained. These provisions clearly show that the Vice-Chancellors approval for the appointment of a teacher of an affiliated college was not necessary prior to 25th September, 1974, although now the management has no power to appoint a teacher without the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. 5. There is no dispute that the management of the college appointed the petitioners on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee on 4th September, 1974, much before the amendment of Section 31 (11) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority either to satisfy himself about the qualification of the teacher or to consider the suitability or educational qualification of the teacher appointed by the managing committee of the college. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority either to satisfy himself about the qualification of the teacher or to consider the suitability or educational qualification of the teacher appointed by the managing committee of the college. It appears that the managing committee of the college under some mistaken belief forwarded the papers to the Vice-Chancellor who had no authority to consider the suitability of the teacher or to satisfy himself about the qualification of the teacher or to grant approval. For these reasons the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the committee of management. urged that Section 26 (4) of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, required that if a teacher was appointed in an affiliated college for a period of more than six months, the appointment was subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The provisions of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965 stood repealed by Section 74 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Under the circumstances the provisions of Section 26 (4) of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, ceased to be applicable. Learned counsel then urged that in view of Section 50 of the State Universities Act, 1973, the provisions of Section 26(4) were applicable and the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was necessary to be obtained. We find no merit in this contention. Section 50 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, lays down that so long as the First Statutes are not made, the Statutes as in force immediately before the commencement of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973, shall continue in force, in so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. First statutes as contemplated by Section 50 of the 1973 Act, were not framed by the time the petitioners were appointed; in fact they were framed somewhere in 1977. The Statute 7.23(b) of the first statutes framed for the Kanpur University under the 1965 Act provided that any appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college shall be governed by Section 26 (4) of the Act. Thus by reference the Statute incorporated Section 26 (4) of 1965 Act which required the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The Statute 7.23(b) of the first statutes framed for the Kanpur University under the 1965 Act provided that any appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college shall be governed by Section 26 (4) of the Act. Thus by reference the Statute incorporated Section 26 (4) of 1965 Act which required the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The first Statute framed under the 1965 Act could, continue to remain in force, only if it was not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1973 Act. As discussed earlier, the 1973 Act, did not tetter the power of the committee of management in making appointment of teacher by requiring it to obtain the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The Statute 7.23 (b) framed under the 1965 Act placed fetter on the powers of the Committee of Management as it required the Management to obtain approval from the Vice-Chancellor. The statute framed under the 1965 Act requiring the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was, thus, inconsistent with the statutory provisions contained in the 1973 Act, as there was no necessity, to obtain approval of the Vice-Chancellor. 7. Learned counsel for the Management then urged that the appointment of Surendra Narain Saxena was illegal as the mandatory requirement of law, as contained in Section 31 (10) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, was not complied, inasmuch as advertisement was not published in three issues of two newspapers. Section 31 (1) lays down that no selection for any appointment shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two news papers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. On the material oh record, it is clear that the advertisement inviting applications for appointment of the teacher in Hindi was published in "National Herald", and three issues of a Hindi daily "Jagaran". The advertisement published in the news paper "National Herald"was, however, not published in three issues. The copies of both the advertisement have been placed before us. The material on record further shows that in all 64 candidates applied for appointment as lecturer in Hindi for,two posts and 16 persons were interviewed by the Selection Committee. These facts show that sufficient publicity was done and opportunity was given to all those who wanted to apply for the said posts. The material on record further shows that in all 64 candidates applied for appointment as lecturer in Hindi for,two posts and 16 persons were interviewed by the Selection Committee. These facts show that sufficient publicity was done and opportunity was given to all those who wanted to apply for the said posts. In tact none has come forward to say that he was deprived of the opportunity of making the application on account of any irregularity committed in the publication of the advertisement We are, therefore, satisfied that there was sufficient compliance of Section 31 (10) of the Act, 1973. 8. Learned counsel then urged that Section 31 (10) is mandatory in nature and he placed reliance on two decisions of this Court (i) R.C. Gupta v. Vice Chancellor Kumaun University, 1982 ALJ 899 : 1982 UPLBEC 519 and (ii) Het Ram Sharma v. Vice-Chancellor Rohelkhand University, (Writ Petition No. 226 of 1977, decided on 10-1-1980. It is true that in these two decisions it was held that Section 31 (10) of the Act is mandatory and before any appointment is made, due publicity of the advertisement should be made in accordance with the provisions contained therein. The court further held that no appointment can be made in respect of the posts not advertised in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 (10) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The law laid down in those two decisions is that the post must be advertised before it is filed by the Committee of Management. We have examined the facts which gave rise to the aforesaid decisions. In both these cases the appointments were made to the posts which had never been advertised in any news paper and in that context this Court held that the appointment of the teachers was invalid, as the provisions of Section 31 (10) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, had not been complied with. In the instant case, the advertisement for the two posts has been published in two news papers, the only irregularity was that the advertisement was not published in three issues, although the daily Jagaran, which is a Hindi paper, had published it in three issues. Having regard to these facts we do not find that any irregularity as to render the appointments of the petitioners illegal. 9. Having regard to these facts we do not find that any irregularity as to render the appointments of the petitioners illegal. 9. Learned counsel then urged that the appointment of Ram Sanjiwan Shukla was illegal as he did not possess the requisite qualification to teach history in mediaveval history. In this connection it was urged that Ram Sanjiwan Shukla did not possess Masters degree in Mediaveval history and as such he was not qualified to be appointed as teacher in the college. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the advertisement which was issued by the Management, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On a perusal of the same we find that the advertisement merely stated that a lecturer in History was required. The qualification for teaching history mentioned in the advertisement was that the candidate should possess Masters degree in the subject of History. Ram Sanjiwan Shukla holds Master of Degree in History (Ancient History). The counsel urged that Ram Sanjiwan Shukla was appointed to teach mediaveval history although he had not obtained the Master of Degree in mediaveval history. We have already pointed out that the advertisement did not specially mention that the lecturer's post was for the purpose of teaching mediaveval history or that those persons who had obtained Master of Degree in mediaveval history should alone apply. In the absence of any such requirements in the advertisement Ram Sanjiwan Shukla was entitled to apply. His qualifications were scrutinised and considered by the Selection Committee duly constituted by under the provisions of the Act. On the recommendation of the Selection committee, the management committee itself appointed him after considering his qualifications and satisfying that he was suitable to teach history in the college. In fact, when the Vice-Chancellor disapproved the appointment of Ram Sanjiwan Shukla, the management made representation to him that Shukla was qualified and he was successfully teaching mediaeval history. The management further made it clear that when the advertisement was issued and the appointment of Sri Shukla was made the management could not ascertain as to whether the teacher would be required to teach mediaveval history or ancient history as by that time students had not exercised their option it being the first session the position was not very clear. Having regard to these facts and circumstances we find no substance in the contention that Ram Sanjiwan Shukla was not qualified and his appointment was illegal. 10. There is no dispute that the management terminated the services of the petitioners merely because the Vice-Chancellor had refused to grant approval to their appointments. In the absence of any order of the Vice-Chancellor the management could not have terminated the petitioners services. We have already held that the petitioners appointment was not subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor, and as the management had appointed them on the recommendation of the Selection committee, they were entitled to continue in service. The Vice-Chancellor had no authority to disapprove their appointments. 11. In the result, we allow the two writ petitions and quash the orders of the Vice-Chancellor and the committee of management terminating the petitioners services. The petitioners are entitled to continue in service. The petitioners are also entitled to costs.