JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - M.M.H. (P.G.) College, Ghaziabad, is a Post-Graduate College, affiliated to the Meerut University, Meerut. Kamalbir, who was a permanent lecturer in Economies Department of the aforesaid College, proceeded on leave with effect from 4th Dec. 1977 to 3rd Dec. 1980. In his leave vacancy, one sri Anil Kumar Sharma was appointed as temporary lecturer with effect from Jan. 1978 to 3rd Dec. 1980. Thereafter, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, who was a permanent lecturer in the aforesaid department, retired on attaining the age of superannuation. As a result of retirement a permanent vacancy fell vacant. As against this vacancy. Anil Kumar Sharma was made permanent with effect from Oct. 4, 1978. Due to Anil Kumar Sharma becoming permanent, the post held by Kamalbir again fell vacant. The respondent College advertised the post for filling in the said vacancy. The petitioner applied for the same. He was interviewed on 13th Feb, 1979 and was selected by the selection committee. After obtaining the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, its required by S. 31. State Universities Act, 1973. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). the petitioner was appointed as it temporary lecturer in the department of Economics under S. 31(4) of the Act from Mar, 1979 to 3rd Dec, 1980. The appointment letter dated 5th March 1979 issued to the petitioner specified that the petitioner's appointment was as against leave vacancy. It was further notified that if the leave against which the petitioner had been appointed, was cancelled during the period of his service, he would also automatically be terminated from the said date. Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner took over as lecturer in the department of Economics on 23rd Mar. 1979. Kamalbir was to join back on 3rd Dec, 1980. On Oct. 4, 1979, A.K. Sharma gave one month's notice for resigning from the post. As a result of his resignation, the post of lecturer again fell vacant with effect from Nov. 6, 1979. The committee of management of the college concerned initiated proceedings for recruitment of lecturer on the post vacated by A. K. Sharma and for that purpose, approached the Director Higher education. Immediately, thereafter, the post was advertised in the newspapers. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner and respondents applied for selection against the same. 6, 1979. The committee of management of the college concerned initiated proceedings for recruitment of lecturer on the post vacated by A. K. Sharma and for that purpose, approached the Director Higher education. Immediately, thereafter, the post was advertised in the newspapers. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner and respondents applied for selection against the same. The selection committee met on May 8, 1980 and recommended the name of Miss Vijai Rani Shinghal, respondent 5, In all. thirty-five candidates were called. The petitioner was also one of them. Respondent 5. Miss Vijai Rani Shinghal, got first Class in High School, B.A. and M.A. She had also published several papers and had almost completed her thesis in Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner had no research to his credit, and got a high second class in B.Sc and M. A. The recommendation of the selection committee was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor who accorded his approval to the appointment of Miss Vijai Rani Singhal on Oct. 9, 1980, who joined the college on 22nd of the same month. The petitioner on 26th May, 1980 made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor against his non-selection which was renewed by making another representation on Oct. 10, 1980. In this representation, the petitioner claimed that as the permanent post of lecturer in the department of economics had fallen vacant on account of the resignation of A. K. Sharma. the petitioner being qualified on the date of appointment i.e. 8th May, 1980, having served for more than one year, was entitled to be given the said post. As the petitioner could not gel any relief by the representations which he had made, lie filed the present writ petition on 24th Nov, 1980. The application for stay made by the petitioner was rejected on 24th November, 1980. Subsequently, when he filed another stay application, this Court directed that the petitioner will continue to serve the Degree College concerned as a lecturer till such time as Kamalbir did not join the post. Kamalbir, however, joined on the 4th of Dec, 1980, as a result thereof, the petitioner left the service on that date. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition one Sri A. K. Parashar, who was another lecturer appointed in the economics department of respondent 1, left the service. Kamalbir, however, joined on the 4th of Dec, 1980, as a result thereof, the petitioner left the service on that date. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition one Sri A. K. Parashar, who was another lecturer appointed in the economics department of respondent 1, left the service. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another application for stay in this Court claiming his right to work on the post held by A. K. Parashar. On 21st Sept. 1980, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post which had been vacated by A. K. Parashar. This order was, however, modified on 2nd Dec. 1981. 3. The first point argued before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as per S. 31(3)(b) of the Act, on the vacancy of A. K. Sharma, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post vacated by him on the permanent basis and, therefore, the selection held for filling in the same on 8th May, 1980 was invalid. 4. At this place, it may be useful to quote Section 31 (3) (b) along with the First Proviso (which alone is relevant for our purpose) : - "31 (1). 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 post in 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." 5. The petitioners learned counsel alleged that as S.P.S. Chauhan had been appointed on a temporary basis on a post which became permanent, he acquired the right to be made permanent under Section 31 (3) (b). His contention was that the right of the petitioner to become permanent was governed by the main provision and the proviso should be applied to him in a manner that does not exclude something by implication which is embraced by clear words in the enactment. Alternatively, counsel urged that the relevant date for finding as to whether the petitioner had served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment was the date on which the vacancy was filled in and not the date on which it occurred. 6. The submission made by the petitioner is devoid of substance. The proviso added to Section 31 (3) (b) requires two conditions. These were : - (1) that the petitioner held the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of such substantive appointment, and; (2) he had served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment. 7. In the instant case, the point that arises for consideration is the reference of the aforesaid two conditions required to be fulfilled. It is admitted on all hands that if either of the two conditions were not fulfilled, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b). Petitioner's counsel urged that since on the date of appointment on the substantive post vacated by Anil Kumar Sharma i.e. on 8-5-80, the petitioner had served continuously for a period of more than one year and he had the prescribed qualifications for the post, the requirements laid down by the Proviso fulfilled and the petitioner was thus entitled to the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b). 8. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the holding of prescribed qualification for the post by the petitioner. The dispute is in respect of the period of one year's service. The case of the contesting respondent was that the date with reference to which one year's period was to be examined was the date on which the vacancy occurred when Anil Kumar Sharma resigned. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find it difficult to accept the petitioner's argument. The case of the contesting respondent was that the date with reference to which one year's period was to be examined was the date on which the vacancy occurred when Anil Kumar Sharma resigned. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find it difficult to accept the petitioner's argument. It is on the vacancy of a permanent post occurring that the management is called upon to fill in the said post under Cl. (b) of sub-section (3) by appointing a teacher who has been working without reference to the selection committee. For taking decision, the committee of management has to find out whether the teacher has put in one year after his appointment. If he is not working on the post after his appointment for one year, the committee of management would be entitled to advertise the post for filling in the same by direct recruitment. The committee of management has to make arrangement for the filling up of the post immediately. Section 31.(3) (b) does not require the committee of management to wait till the time that the teacher working on the temporary post has fulfilled the necessary prescribed qualifications for being made permanent. It requires the decision to be taken by the committee on the date when the vacancy occurs. If the teacher working on the temporary post has not put in continuous service of one year, he will not be entitled to be considered. If he is not entitled to be made perment, the committee of management will be fully entitled to make arrangement for advertisement. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner had not served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment when the vacancy occurred. Hence. S. 31 (3) (b) did not apply. 10. To us, it appears that the date with reference to which experience of one year is required by the Proviso is a fixed date which is tied up to the date on which the vacancy occurs and not the date on which appointment is made. To take a view different from this would create an anomalous position and is likely to bring about conflicting results which the legislature could not have intended to lay down. To take a view different from this would create an anomalous position and is likely to bring about conflicting results which the legislature could not have intended to lay down. The intention of the legislature appears to be that if on the date of vacancy there is already a teacher who has fulfilled the requirement of the main provision as well as that of the Proviso, he will be entitled to be made permanent. The intention is clear from the language used. On this interpretation every one will be treated equally and no discretion would be available to the committee of management to apply this provision arbitrarily. 11. So far as the argument relating to interpretation of proviso is concerned, it may be stated that the cardinal rule of interpretation is that the provisos must be considered along with the principal section. Applying this, we hold that the main provision of Section 31 (1) (b) has to be interpreted along with the proviso. Taking the two together, if the requirement of the proviso is not fulfilled, no teacher will be entitled to get the benefit. 12. Craies on "Statute Law" on page 218 has said about the construction of provisos. The relevant clause is quoted below : - "The effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso, according to the ordinary rules of construction, is to except out of the preceding portion of the enactment,or to qualify something enacted therein, which but for the proviso would be within it; and such a proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be fairly and properly construed without attributing to it that effect." 13. For what we have said above, it is not necessary for us to consider the submission of the petitioner's learned counsel as to whether the expression "may" used in the latter part of Section 31 (3) (b) should be construed as "shall". We have found that the petitioner was not entitled to be given the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b). That being so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Petitioner's learned counsel in the beginning of the arguments claimed his right to be appointed as against the vacancy created by the fact of A. K. Parashar's joining the Indian Economic Services. That being so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Petitioner's learned counsel in the beginning of the arguments claimed his right to be appointed as against the vacancy created by the fact of A. K. Parashar's joining the Indian Economic Services. Since A. K. Parashar's proceeding on leave no vacancy of the nature contemplated by Section 31 (3) (b) has occurred on which the petitioner may be given the permanent appointment, he is not entitled to get the same. In fact, the petitioner's learned counsel himself conceded to the above position. 15. In the result, the writ petition tails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the present case, the parties shall bear their own costs.