JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. On 30th Jan. 1984. learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents stated before us that in view of the fact that the dispute relates to the appointment on posts of lecturers in the Ancient History Department of the Allahabad University which have been lying vacant for the last several years, the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The parties having exchanged affidavits and their counsel having been heard, the petition is being disposed of by means of this judgment. 2. The two petitioners are applicants for permanent posts in the Department of Ancient History. Allahabad University. They are aggrieved by an action of the Vice-Chancellor in making ad hoc appointments against the permanent posts and posts which have been lying vacant consequent upon leave granted to the incumbent for periods extending over ten months, in the purported exercise of powers under S. 13 (6) of the U. P. State Universities Act. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in the facts and circumstances existing in the present case, the conditions precedent for the exercise of powers under S. 13 (6) of the aforesaid Act are completely absent and that consequently the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction to make any appointment under that provision. 3. The essential facts are that an advertisement No. 14 of 1979 was issued by the University of Allahabad. inviting applications for various posts in different Departments of the University including three permanent posts in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. These were specialised posts. In view, however, of new Statutes framed by the University in June 1980, making alterations in the minimum qualifications of the posts for which the aforesaid advertisement had already been issued, another advertisement was necessitated being advertisement No. 11 of 1980 laying down certain preferential qualifications for the aforesaid three posts such as experience of Archaeological field work and handling Archaelogical materials. By means of the second advertisement No. If of 1980 applications were invited also for filling four temporary posts in the said Department which were likely to be made permanent. By means of the second advertisement No. If of 1980 applications were invited also for filling four temporary posts in the said Department which were likely to be made permanent. Immediately thereafter the University issued a corrigendum being advertisement No. 12 of 1980 wherein it was clarified that the preferential qualifications were applicable only in regard to the first three specialised posts. While the remaining posts were general posts in regard to which the clause relating to preferential qualifications in the advertisement was not applicable. Sri Deep Kumar Shukla, the first petitioner applied for one of the permanent specialised posts mentioned above, while the second petitioner Vijay Kumar Pandey was an applicant for one of the general posts. Both the applicants applied for permanent posts. 4. 6.8.1981 was fixed by the University for interview of the candidates for the general posts in Ancient History Department, while 16-1-1982 was fixed for interview of the specialised posts. However, the interviews fixed for 6-8-1981 were first postponed to 15-1-1982 and later on 15-1-1982 they were postponed sine die. Likewise interviews fixed for 16-1-1982 of specialised posts were also postponed sine die. Aggrieved by these postponements Deep Kumar Shukla addressed a representation to the Chancellor of the University on 16-1-1982 stating that the posts were advertised in November 1980 and the Selection Committee was to meet on 16-1-1982 but the meeting had been postponed without any valid reasons. He requested the Chancellor to ensure that the Selection Committee was called at an early date. A similar representation was also filed by Vijay Kumar Pandey. These representations, however, do. not seem to have evoked any response from the chancellor. After the postponement of the meetings of the Selection Committee fixed for selection of teachers for appointment against the permanent posts (specialised and general) no date has yet been fixed for the purpose. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that the postponement of the meeting fixed for June, 1981 and January, 1982 was necessitated because of some agitation started by some appellate teachers claiming that all the six posts for which the aforesaid advertisement had been issued ought to be treated as general posts and that three posts were wrongly being described as specialised posts. Copy of one such representation dated 6-3-1982, that of Sri Om Prakash Srivastava addressed to the Chancellor has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. On this representation the Chancellor called for the comments of the University which were submitted by means of a letter dated 3rd July, 1982 (Annexure 4 to the counter-affidavit), in which it was stated that the three posts were rightly earmarked as specialised posts and that the representation of Sri Om Prakash Srivastava be rejected. In paragraph 8 of the comments, it was further stated as follows. "With regard to the prayer of the petitioner it is submitted that three, posts are with special qualifications and the remaining are general posts and steps are being taken to fill them up as such. The representation has no force and it is liable to be rejected." No steps, however, for issuing fresh advertisement for the filling up of the aforesaid permanent posts appear to have been taken by the University till now. 5. On 18th August 1983, however, an advertisement No. 4 of 1983 (Annexure-6) to the counter-affidavit) was issued by the University inviting applications for Posts in various Departments including the Department of Ancient History. Culture and Archaeology. In this advertisement it was stated that the posts are purely temporary for a maximum period of six months and were likely to be terminated without notice. The petitioners state that not being interested in temporary appointments they did not make any application in response to this advertisement. However, through a notice issued to one Sri Shashikant Rai, who was one of the applicants for appointment in response to the aforesaid advertisement issued in August 1983 the petitioners came to know that the Vice-Chancellor was proposing to act under S. 31 (3) (a) of the Act even in regard to permanent posts which had been lying vacant for the last several years and for which the applicants had applied. by making ad hoc appointments against permanent posts and against leave vacancies even where leave granted was for more than ten months and that 5th Jan. 1984 had been fixed for interviews. Both the petitioners thereupon filed separate representations on the 4th Jan. 1984 to the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University protesting against this extraordinary procedure adopted by the Vice-Chancellor. by making ad hoc appointments against permanent posts and against leave vacancies even where leave granted was for more than ten months and that 5th Jan. 1984 had been fixed for interviews. Both the petitioners thereupon filed separate representations on the 4th Jan. 1984 to the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University protesting against this extraordinary procedure adopted by the Vice-Chancellor. In the representation, it was requested that no ad hoc appointments be made against permanent vacancies or against leave vacancies where the leave was for more than ten months on the same date i. e. 4th Jan. 1984, the petitioners filed this petition. Initially the petitioners had prayed for the relief of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent University not to make any appointment under S. 31 (3) (a) of the Act in respect of posts likely to last for more than six months and in leave vacancies where the leave granted was for a period of more than ten months. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit in which they specifically raised a ground to the effect that the Vice-Chancellor was acting in excess of his powers in making ad hoc appointments against permanent posts under S. 13 (6) of the Act, there was no urgency or occasion for exercise of that extraordinary power under S. 13 (6). The supplementary affidavit was accepted and the respondents have filed supplementary counter-affidavit in reply thereof in addition to their counter-affidavit. By means of a separate application, the petitioners prayed for a specific relief that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Vice-Chancellor not to make appointments under S. 13 (6) of the Act. This amendment application has been allowed after hearing learned counsel' for the parties by a separate order dated 17-2-1984. 6. On behalf of the University, counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed stating that in the facts and circumstances existing in the present case, the Vice-Chancellor has full authority to make ad hoc appointments against the aforesaid posts and that the petitioners not being applicants for the same have no locus standi to challenge the action of the Vice-Chancellor. 7. Before we deal with the contentions raised by the petitioners, we may first dispose of a preliminary objection. 7. Before we deal with the contentions raised by the petitioners, we may first dispose of a preliminary objection. For the respondents, it was urged that the petitioners have a clear alternative remedy by way of a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. In support of this preliminary objection, learned counsel cited a large number of authorities, both of this court and of the Supreme Court. These are ; 1984 All LJ 21, 1983 UPLBEC 99, 1983 AH LJ 152, 1982 All LJ 774. 1982 UPLBEC 276 and 574, ( AIR 1983 All 128 ). AIR 1977 SC 615 : (1977 Lab IC 290) and, AIR 1976 SC 2428 : (1976 Lab IC 1546):- 8. Having given a careful consideration to the preliminary objection we are clearly of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that no document has been brought on the record on behalf of them containing any decision of the Vice-Chancellor against which the petitioners could be said to have a right of representation under Section 68 of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied on the advertisement issued on 18th Aug. 1983 referred to above and submitted that that should be treated as the decision of the Vice-Chancellor against which the petitioners could file a representation under Section 68. We are unable to agree. We have already quoted the substance of the said advertisement which is (annexure-6) to the counter-affidavit. From a reading of this advertisement it cannot be said that, the appointments which were sought to be made pursuant thereto were going to be made by the Vice-Chancellor in the exercise of his extraordinary powers under Section 13 (6) of the Act. The said advertisement is perfectly consistent with an advertisement inviting applications for appointment in the manner contemplated even under Section 31 (3) (a) of the State Universities Act. Indeed, it has not been disputed on behalf of the. respondents that the Vice-Chancellor after this advertisement even requested the Chancellor to nominate an expert to sit on the selection committee for appointment as contemplated under Section 31 (3) (a). The advertisement could not hence necessarily be treated as an advertisement indicating that the. Vice-Chancellor proposed to act under Section 13 (6). 9. respondents that the Vice-Chancellor after this advertisement even requested the Chancellor to nominate an expert to sit on the selection committee for appointment as contemplated under Section 31 (3) (a). The advertisement could not hence necessarily be treated as an advertisement indicating that the. Vice-Chancellor proposed to act under Section 13 (6). 9. There was no specific order or decision of the Vice-Chancellor against which the petitioners could have approached the chancellor under Section 68. 10. Further, the petitioners came to this court on 4th Jan. 1984 for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent University not . to make ad hoc appointments in contravention of the provisions of the Act against permanent vacancies or leave vacancies in cases where the leave granted was for more than ten months on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor was intending to make ad hoc appointments in breach of the Act thereby putting the rights of the petitioners as applicants for .permanent posts in perpetual jeopardy. It is extremely doubtful whether at- the stage at which the petitioners approached this court and having -regard to the nature of the grievance made by the petitioners, any representation lay to the Chancellor and whether the petitioners representation if made would not have met with the same fate which the representation of Omprakash Srivastava aforesaid met when the Chancellor rejected his objection inter alia on the ground that the representation was not maintainable (vide Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit). It is true that where there is an express order of the Vice-Chancellor which could be treated as his decision within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act, a petitioner may be relegated to take recourse to that remedy first before approaching ti's Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But where, as here, there is no such specific 'decision' of the Vice-Chancellor within the meaning of Section 68, it does not seem fair to throw out the petition on the ground of alternative remedy alone. 11. In any case, the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a for case in which the petition should be thrown out on this ground alone. 12. In any case, the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertainment of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a for case in which the petition should be thrown out on this ground alone. 12. We now turn to the main issue which was debated at the Bar namely whether the. Vice-Chancellor is competent to fill the aforesaid posts under Section 13 (6) on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The contention of the petitioners was that there was no such compelling urgency which required immediate action on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and which could not have been immediately dealt with by the authority competent to make regular appointments against the permanent posts so as to warrant action under Section 13 (6). 13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on this controversy, it will be convenient to have the relevant provisions of the Act extracted here. Section. 13 (6) of the Act provides "13 (6). Where any matter of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any Officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the Officer. Authority, or other body who or which in ordinary course would have dealt with the matter : Provided that no such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances ; Provided further that if the Officer, Authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken it may refer the matter to the Chancellor- who may either -confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner as he thinks fit and thereupon it shall cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect in the modified form, so however, that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Provided also that any person in the service of University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, shall have the right t0 appeal against such action to the Executive Council within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon, the Executive Council may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor." . 14. Section 31 (1) of the Act reads as follows ; "3l (1). Subject to the provisions of this Act, the teachers of the University and the teachers of an affiliated or associated College (other than a College maintained exclusively by the State Government) shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the affiliated or associated College, as the case may be, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter provided." 15. The next important provision is Section 31 (3) (a) which stands thus:- "31 (3) (a). In the case of teacher of the University other than a Professor. the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of Faculty and the Head of the Department concerned and an expert nominated by the Chancellor in that behalf and in the case. The next important provision is Section 31 (3) (a) which stands thus:- "31 (3) (a). In the case of teacher of the University other than a Professor. the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of Faculty and the Head of the Department concerned and an expert nominated by the Chancellor in that behalf and in the case. of a teacher of an affiliated or associated College, the Management in consultation with an expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf make officiating appointment in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months without reference to the Selection Committee, but shall trot fill any other vacancy or post likely to last for more than six months without such reference." 16. Finally, we may reproduce Section 31 (4) in so far as is relevant for our purpose: "31 (4) (a). The Selection Committee for the appointment of a teacher of the University (other than the Director of an Institute and the Principal of a constituent College) shall consist of (i) The Vice-Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof : (ii) the Head of the Department concerned Provided that the Head of the Department shall not sit in the Selection Committee when he is himself a candidate for the appointment or when the pest concerned is of a higher rank than his substantive post and in that event his office shall be filled by the professor in the Department and if there is no Professor by the Dean of the Faculty (Provided further that where the Chancellor is satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case, a Selection Committee cannot be constituted in accordance with the preceding proviso he may direct the constitution of the Selection Committee in such manner as he thinks fit). (iii) in the case of a Professor or Reader, three experts and in any other case, two experts be nominated by the Chancellor." 17. Section 31 (5). (a), (b) and (c) may also be reproduced here: "31 (5) (a). Appeal of six or more experts in each subject of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consulting the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary. Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under sub-sec. Appeal of six or more experts in each subject of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consulting the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary. Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under sub-sec. (4) shall be a person whose name , is borne on such pane). (b) The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-sec. (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on the panel. (c) A panel referred to In clause (a) or Cl. (b) shall be revised after every three years." 18. A perusal of Section 31 of the Act indicates that it embodies a complete and comprehensive code laying down the procedure for appointment of teachers against both temporary and permanent posts as well as providing for .substantive as well as temporary appointments. The next important feature to be noticed is that it contemplates that teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Executive Council to permanent posts or posts likely to last for more than six months only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner provided. 19. The object behind all this is oblivious namely that the substantive appointment of teachers are t-o be made by the Executive Council only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee so that high academic standards are maintained among the teaching staff of the University. The Executive Council as well as the Experts who sit on the Selection Committees are men of academic eminence. The on'y exceptions where the selections are not made by the Executive Council with the aid of a Selection Committee are those which are contemplated under sub-sec. (3) (a) of Section 31 which empowers the Vice-Chancellor to make officiating appointments in leave vacancies where the leave granted to an incumbent does not exceed 10 months. Even sub-sec. (3) (a) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall, not fill any other vacancy or post likely to last for more than six months without reference to the Selection Committee. It thus seems clear that the object of the enactment is that substantive posts shall not be filled without the aid of a Selection Committee. 20. Section 13 (g). Even sub-sec. (3) (a) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall, not fill any other vacancy or post likely to last for more than six months without reference to the Selection Committee. It thus seems clear that the object of the enactment is that substantive posts shall not be filled without the aid of a Selection Committee. 20. Section 13 (g). however, engrafts an exception to the aforesaid general policy of the Act, in that it enables the Vice-Chancellor to make an appointment of a teacher without following the elaborate procedural safeguards embodied in Section 31, that is, without reference to the Selection Committee in cases where he finds that the matter is of such urgent nature that the same could not be immediately dealt with by the regular authority named :n the Act for making the appointment of teachers. The essence of sub-sec. (6) of Section 13 seems to be the existence of that degree of urgency requiring immediate action where the action, the appointment of teachers in the present case could not be dealt with by the authority namely the Executive Council in the present case. 21. It is in the background of the aforesaid statutory scheme that we have to exam ne the question whether the Vice-Chancellor was competent to proceed to make ad hoc appointments against a large number of substantive vacancies and whether the matter was of such urgent nature that the same could not be immediately dealt with by the Executive Council. 22. The undisputed broad facts which emerge out of the affidavits exchanged between the parties in this case are that at least six permanent posts have been existing 1978-79 in the Ancient History Department for filling up which advertisements were issued by the University as far back as 1979-80. The first meeting of the Selection Committee for filling the general posts was called in August 1981 but the same was postponed to 15th January 1982 on which date again the meeting was postponed sine die. The first date for which meeting of the Selection Committee was called in the case of specialised posts was 16th January 1982 but on that date also the meeting was postponed sine die. No meeting of the Selection Committee has since been convened for the past two years. The duty to convene meetings of the Executive Council was on the Vice-Chancellor under sub-sec. (5) of Section 13. No meeting of the Selection Committee has since been convened for the past two years. The duty to convene meetings of the Executive Council was on the Vice-Chancellor under sub-sec. (5) of Section 13. In none of the affidavits filed on behalf of the University, it has been averred that the Vice-Chancellor had convened any meeting of the Executive Council pursuant to the advertisement already issued for filling the general and specialised permanent posts in the Department of Ancient History since Jan. 1982. In the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 20th Jan. 1984, it has been categorically stated that no attempt was made after January 1982 to convene any meeting of the Selection Committee to fill up these posts despite the various representations made by the petitioners to the Chancellor of which reference has been made hereinabove. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University this averment has not b+en denied, though an attempt has been made to show that there were extraordinary circumstances facing the Vice-Chancellor on account of which the meeting of the Selection Committee could not be convened for all these years. We will deal with those circumstances a little later. Meanwhile, it may be pointed out that though the Registrar had intimated the Chancellor by means of his letter dated 3rd July 1982 (annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit) that steps were being taken to fill up these posts, no steps in fact by way of calling a meeting of the Executive Council or of the Selection Committee for making these appointments appear to have been taken by the University since. 23. In the aforesaid supplementary affidavit the petitioners have specifically alleged that there did not arise any such sudden or grave situation in August 1983 when the advertisement for making ad hoc appointments was issued for filling various posts so as warrant resort by the Vice-Chancellor to the expediency of making ad hoc appointments under Section 13 (6). The petitioners have also asserted in various affidavits that Sri. G. C. Pandey the Acting Vice-Chancellor who is stated to have caused the issue of Advertisement 0n 18th August. The petitioners have also asserted in various affidavits that Sri. G. C. Pandey the Acting Vice-Chancellor who is stated to have caused the issue of Advertisement 0n 18th August. 1983 and who has taken the impugned action was also the Head of the Department of Ancient History until a few months before his appointment as Acting Vice-Chancellor on 1-8-1983 for a period of six months (or until a regular Vice-Chancellor was appointed), had not taken any initiative for filling up these posts which had been lying vacant for the last three to four years. It is asserted by the petitioners that Sri G. C. Pandey made an attempt to fill up these permanent posts as Acting Vice-Chancellor by making ad hoc appointments during the short interregnum pending the appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor who was nominated in November, 1983. Be that as it may there is nothing to indicate firstly, that any crisis had suddenly developed in August, 1983 and. that the same could not be dealt with by the Executive Council. 24. Counsel for the respondent University, however, placed strong reliance on paras 12 to 16 of the supplementary counter-affidavit in support of his contention that the action of the Vice-Chancellor was necessitated by an extraordinary situation which had been prevailing in the University at the relevant time. In para 12 of this supplementary counter-affidavit, it is alleged that there was general strike of the non-teaching staff in July-August, 1982 and between December. 1982 and January 1983 the Vice-Chancellor was busy with a controversy which had sparked off on account of an order passed by the Chancellor exonerating a particular student of the charge of use of unfair means at the B.A. examination. During February-March 1983. again it is alleged, the Vice-Chancellor was busy with the Special Selection Committees appointed for filling various superior, planned posts' of Professors which had been sanctioned by the University Grants Commission and which would have lapsed if not filled within time. 25. The aforesaid allegations made in the supplementary counter-affidavit attempting to explain away the period between July 1982 and March 1983 have been denied in the rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder-affidavits. In any case, these allegations, do not in our opinion, provide any valid answer to the basic question, namely. 25. The aforesaid allegations made in the supplementary counter-affidavit attempting to explain away the period between July 1982 and March 1983 have been denied in the rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder-affidavits. In any case, these allegations, do not in our opinion, provide any valid answer to the basic question, namely. why it was not possible for the Vice-Chancellor to have convened the meeting of the Executive Council or of the Selection Committee for filling up the posts in question, since the meeting was last adjourned on 15/16th Jan. 1982. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University and under sub-section (5) of S. 13 it is the Vice-Chancellor who has the powers to convene meetings of the Executive Council. It was, therefore, his duty to have convened the meetings of the Executive Council and the Selection Committee immediately after January 1982 in accordance with the assurance given to the Chancellor (vide Annexure-IV to the counter-affidavit). 26. In para 13 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is alleged that on account of the facts stated in earlier paragraph, it was not feasible for the Vice-Chancellor to convene the regular selection Committee for permanent appointments but as the vacancies had been lying vacant for a long time and different Departments were pressing their demands for making appointments teachers without any delay so that the teaching work could not suffer, the Vice-Chancellor had no option but to take recourse to Section 13 (6). 27. This paragraph again does not take the matter further for the University. As there is no valid explanation forthcoming as to why it was not possible for the Vice-Chancellor to convene the meeting of the selection Committee since Jan. 1982, the fact that the post had been lying vacant for the last several years could not, in our opinion, afford any legitimate ground for invoking the emergency powers vested in the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13 (6). If the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive and academic Officer of the University fails to convene the meetings of the Executive Council or the Selection Committee for filling up permanent posts for years on end, he cannot in our view, make the circumstance of the posts lying vacant for a long period itself a ground for invoking the extra-ordinary powers under Section 13 (6) and thereby render Section 31 and the safeguards embodied therein totally otiose. The situation which empowers the Vice-Chancellor to take action under sub-sec. (6) of Section 13 is a situation which may have suddenly developed and not one which could have been anticipated or avoided or which would be the inevitable consequence of the failure of the Vice-Chancellor himself to perform his duties and functions over long periods of time. 28. Further, it has not been stated in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the University as to why in August 1983 when the Vice-Chancellor caused the aforesaid advertisement to be issued it was not possible to set the process of making regular selections with the aid of a Selection Committee in motion and why the adjourned meeting of the Selection Committee could not be immediately held or why steps could not be taken to fill up these posts immediately. In the absence of that material the Acting Vice-Chancellor could not arrogate to himself the power of making ad hoc appointments to fill up permanent posts. The Selection Committee for the appointment of teachers consists of the Vice-Chancellor, the Head of the Department concerned and two Experts to be nominated by the Chancellor. These Experts stand already nominated as under sub-sec. (5) (a) of Section 31. A panel of six or more Experts in each subject is drawn uP by the Chancellor. There was hence no such insurmountable difficulty in the meeting of the Selection Committee being called for making substantive appointments against permanent posts. 29. In paragraph 15 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it has been stated that the process of making permanent appointments through the usual procedure set out in Section 31 (4). that is, the appointments by the Executive Council with the aid of the Selection Committee is highly time consuming and therefore, recourse to Section 13 (6) became necessary. 30. We do not agree. The facts stated in paragraph 15 merely point out the normal and usual difficulties which are inherent in the process of appointing teachers with the aid of Selection Committees. These difficulties, assuming they are there, may, at best, be considered as a plea for effecting change in the statute or the very system of selecting teachers with the aid of Selection Committee. But they cannot afford a valid justification for by passing Section 31 (4) and taking recourse to Section 13 (6). These difficulties, assuming they are there, may, at best, be considered as a plea for effecting change in the statute or the very system of selecting teachers with the aid of Selection Committee. But they cannot afford a valid justification for by passing Section 31 (4) and taking recourse to Section 13 (6). For, if the said circumstances are accepted as legitimate for invoking Section 13 (6), the Vice-Chancellor shall always be free to make ad hoc appointments as those difficulties are, according to the respondents, inherent and inevitable in making appointments through the normal process of selection under Section 31 (4). 31. Our conclusion therefore, is that there did not exist any such real urgency justifying recourse by the Acting Vice-Chancellor to emergency powers under Sec. I3 (6) through the expedient of making ad hoc appointments to fill up permanent posts or posts in vacancies caused by the grant of leave to the incumbents for more than ten months under, in so far as the posts in the Ancient History Department were concerned. We are clearly of the view that in so far as the appointments of the nature indicated above, in the Ancient History Department are concerned, the Vice-Chancellor has illegally usurped powers and the grounds disclosed for the exercise of that power were neither relevant nor valid. We, however wish to make it clear that it is not the view of this court that the Vice-Chancellor cannot make ad hoc appointments of teachers in an urgent matter requiring immediate action and where the appointments cannot immediately be made by the authorities named in the Statute but as things stand at present there was no valid ground, in so far as the permanent posts in the Ancient History Department is concerned, for resort to Section 13 (6). 32. We further wish to make it clear that the University would be free to make appointments in pursuance of the impugned selections which can fall within sub-section (3) (a) of Section 31-, Likewise if and as soon as a situation arises such as that contemplated under Section 13 (6) the Vice-Chancellor shall be free to make ad hoc appointments. 33. We may now briefly dispose of few subsidiary objections which were raised on behalf of the respondents. 34. 33. We may now briefly dispose of few subsidiary objections which were raised on behalf of the respondents. 34. It was urged that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in that all those persons who were called for interview in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18th August, 1983 have not been impleaded. It was urged that they are bound to be affected by the result of this petition. We find no merit in this contention. The petitioners are challenging the very competence of the Vice-Chancellor in the facts and circumstances of the present case to make ad hoc appointments. The petition is not directed against any individual or individuals but against the vires of the action of the Vice-Chancellor in taking recourse to S. 13 (6 on the ground that the condition precedent If or the exercise of powers under that [provision did not exist. In these circumstances. in our opinion, the mere [applicants for the ad hoc posts cannot be said to be a necessary party. No right has accrued to them as yet. 35. Next, it was contended that the petitioners have no cause of action as they have not applied for these ad hoc appointments. The contention is devoid of any substance. The petitioner's case is that the making of ad hoc appointments against permanent posts is a mere device to postpone indefinitely the filling up of these posts through the normal procedure as these ad hoc appointments are kept intact for years by repeated renewal of the same through the same expedient viz. S. 13 (6). The petitioners further assert that they have been waiting for being called for interview for the last several years and that their chances of being considered for the permanent posts are put into abeyance and jeopardy indefinitely, if these posts are filled by ad hoc appointees. They have further alleged that these appointees continue for years and as the practice has grown over the years, the University does not make regular appointments for years together. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no cause of action. 36. On behalf of the private respondents. it was urged that as the selection Committee had failed in its duty to make appointments, the Vice-Chancellor could take recourse to S. 13 (6). We do not agree. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no cause of action. 36. On behalf of the private respondents. it was urged that as the selection Committee had failed in its duty to make appointments, the Vice-Chancellor could take recourse to S. 13 (6). We do not agree. The Vice-Chancellor as the chief executive and academic officer of the University is empowered to convene the meetings of the Executive Council. The Vice-Chancel or cannot, therefore. make his own omission a ground for invoking has extraordinary powers under S. 13 (6). 37. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from making any ad hoc appointment under S. 13 (6) of the Act against the permanent posts in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology or against leave vacancies in the said Department caused by the grant of leave to the incumbents for periods exceeding ten months or from filling in other vacancies or posts likely to last for more than six months. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.