JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The case of the Petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Register, Sambalpur University (opp. party No. 2) Jyoti Vihar, Burla on 13-9-1976, vide Annexure-1, for two posts of Readers in the Departmental of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering in the University College of Engineering, Burla. The qualifications prescribed were a first class Bachelor's Degree or Master's Degree in the subject, or a first class Bachelor's Degree and five years teaching experience for holders of Master's Degree. The Syndicate by its resolution No. 18 dated 29-1-1977 amended the qualifications and issued another advertisements, vide Annexure-2, prescribing a first class Master's Degree and published research work of equivalent standard with a minimum of seven years' experience out of which five years must be in teaching and/or research with specialisation in any field of the subject. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that those who applied in response to the earlier advertisement need not apply again. The Petitioner, who was then serving as a lecturer in Electronics and possessed a bachelor's Degree in Science (Hons.) and also in the subject, offered his candidature for the post and was called to the interview which was held on 26-8-1977. According to him, by then he had completed all the four parts of the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. He had passed the first three parts and had submitted the dissertation for the final part, the result of which was published on 30-12-1977. The Selection Committee (for short the 'Committee') which consisted of three experts including the nominee of the Syndicate, recommended the name of the Petitioner for appointment as a Reader. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 27-8-1977 approved the recommendation of the Committee and resolved, vide Annexure-3, that the Petitioner may be appointed as a Reader in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering after he gets the M.Sc. (Engineering) Degree. On the same date and by the same resolution Shri G.S. Rath (opp. party No. 3) and Shri G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) were appointed as Reader in Electronics and Lecturer in Electronics respectively. Eight out of the sixteen members of the Syndicate were present on that day. (Engineering) Degree. On the same date and by the same resolution Shri G.S. Rath (opp. party No. 3) and Shri G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) were appointed as Reader in Electronics and Lecturer in Electronics respectively. Eight out of the sixteen members of the Syndicate were present on that day. According to the Petitioner, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24-9-1977 attended by only five members, reconsidered the resolution in annexure-3, rejected the recommendation which had already been accepted on the earlier date (27-8-1977) and cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-4. This action of the Syndicate, according to the Petitioner, is illegal, without jurisdiction and in clear violation of Section 20(2) proviso of the Sambalpur University Act (for short the 'Act') which provides that if the Syndicate differs from the recommendation of the Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. The Petitioners contention is that the Syndicate, who is the appointing authority, had already accepted the recommendation of the Committee and there was no recommendation before the Syndicate on 24-9-1977 to be accepted or rejected. If, however, the recommendation was still there on 24-9-1977 and the Syndicate differed from the selection on the question of minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement, i.e. M.Sc. (engineering) Degree, it should have recorded the same and referred the matter to the Chancellor (opp. party No. 1) for final decision. Apart from this, when there was no item in the agenda of the Syndicate on 24-2-1977 regarding the reconsideration of the resolution dated 27-8-1977 and the absentee members had no notice of the desire of a few members to re-open the question, the resolution ipso facto is invalid. On the aforesaid grounds, the Petitioner has prayed to quash the resolution No. 589 dated 24-9-1977 (Annexure-4) of the Sambalpur University so far as it affects the Petitioner. He has also prayed for quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 16/12-1-1979 (Annexure-14) appointing opp. party No. 4 as a Reader in Electronics and his appointment letter as per Annexure-15 (this prayer has been added after the amendment). He has also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to opposite party Nos. He has also prayed for quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 16/12-1-1979 (Annexure-14) appointing opp. party No. 4 as a Reader in Electronics and his appointment letter as per Annexure-15 (this prayer has been added after the amendment). He has also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to issue an appointment letter to the Petitioner in termers of the resolution in Annexure.3 and allow the Petitioner to retain his seniority as Reader and pass such other order/orders as deemed appropriate, to do justice to the Petitioner. 2. In the counter filed by the Chancellor (opp. party No. 1) it has been stated that the recommendation of the Syndicate in respect of the Petitioner was not a recommendation but a pious wish as passing of his M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination was an uncertain event. The first resolution dated 27-8-1977 (Annexure-3) of the Syndicate was illegal and unconstitutional and it was corrected in the second resolution (Annexure. 4) dated 24.9.1977 (wrongly mentioned as 12.11.1977). Since Petitioner felt that in the second resolution the Syndicate differed from the recommendation of the Committee, he through a petition referred the matter for the decision of the Chancellor u/s 20(2) of the Act. The Chancellor on receipt of the reference asked the University to show cause and after considering the matter as required u/s 20(2) of the Act agreed that the Syndicate was justified in differing from the recommendation of the Committee, if at all the same was a recommendation vide Aunexure-D/4, Shri G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) who was a candidate for appointment as a Reader in the subject and same students of the College objected to the appointment of the Petitioner and approached the Chancellor with petitions which were also disposed of along with the reference made by the Petitioner. Opp. party No. 2 in his counter has stated that the University College of Engineering, Burla is only a college managed by the University. The teachers of the said College are not University teachers. They are merely teachers of a college managed by the University. As such Section 20(2) of the Act has no application to the appointment of teachers in the said college. The advertisement in Annexure-2 was issued calling for fresh applications with revised qualification, experience and higher scale of pay. It superseded the previous advertisement in Annexure-1. They are merely teachers of a college managed by the University. As such Section 20(2) of the Act has no application to the appointment of teachers in the said college. The advertisement in Annexure-2 was issued calling for fresh applications with revised qualification, experience and higher scale of pay. It superseded the previous advertisement in Annexure-1. In Annexure-2 it was stated that those who had applied in response to Annexure-1 may not apply afresh meaning thereby that those who possessed the qualification as per Annexure-2 and had applied earlier in response to Annexure-1 need not apply again if they so choose. The Petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification for the post as per Annexure-2 since he had only a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering and not a master's Degree in Engineering by the last date for submission of applications, i.e. 18-3-1977. Unfortunately, the Committee did not confine their recommendations for appointment keeping in view the conditions laid down in the advertisement regarding qualification. The Petitioner who had not passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination was recommended for appointment as and when he would pass his M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. The conditional recommendation for future appointment of the Petitioner being unconstitutional, illegal and against the requirement no writ in the matter should issue, assuming all that the Petitioner says otherwise are taken to be granted. The University Syndicate in its meeting on 24-9-1977 modified the earlier resolution dated 27-8-1977 as it was impossibly to appoint the Petitioner as he had not passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination by then. 3. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counters filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and has challenged the assertions made in the counters. He has stated that he was already a Lecturer in the College. His name was recommended for the higher post of Reader subject to his passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. This procedure is not unknown to the University. He has given instance where such procedure was adopted by the University. Being aggrieved by the resolution dated 24-2-1977 he filed an appeal before the Chancellor u/s 5(7) of the Act and it cannot be deemed to be a reference u/s 20(2). The Chancellor by asking the University to show came merely followed the procedure prescribed u/s 5(7) and it hall nothing to do with Section 20(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the resolution dated 24-2-1977 he filed an appeal before the Chancellor u/s 5(7) of the Act and it cannot be deemed to be a reference u/s 20(2). The Chancellor by asking the University to show came merely followed the procedure prescribed u/s 5(7) and it hall nothing to do with Section 20(2) of the Act. Opposite party No. 1 in his counter has taken the position that Section 20(2) of the Act is applicable to the case of the Petitioner and the University (opp. party No. 2) is not entitled to say that it has no application. The opposite parties cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee by the Syndicate by it resolution dated 27-8-1977 was not a pious wish as stated by opposite parties. 4. Dr. Dash, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that as per the advertisement in Annnxure-1 the Petitioner offered his candidature. In Annexure-2 it was made clear that candidates who applied in response to Annexure-1 need not apply again. Therefore, there was no question of Annexure-2 superceding Annexure-1, as contended by the opposite parties. The Petitioner was called to the interview, found suitable and recommended by the Committee which was accepted by the Syndicate vide its resolution in Annexure-3 subject to his passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) examination. There as no question of any pions wish as now contended by the opposite parties. The Petitioner's passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination was not an uncertain event at all. In the semester system, the result of each semester is published after each examination and the fourth semester examination is only on a thesis prepared under a guide who is a teacher of the College. Regulation 11(i) of the Master of Science (Engineering) Examination (in Semester system) provide that a thesis or dissertation work shall be submitted before the end of the 4th semester (from 1st February to 31st July). The Syndicate in general and the Vice-Chancellor/Principal knew that, the Petitioner's results of 4th Semester were expected at any moment after July 1977. So he was called to the interview, selected by the Committee and appointed by resolution dated 27-8-1977 (annexure-3) of the Syndicate. There was absolutely no uncertainty. There was no question of the Petitioner's joining the college within one month of the appointment. So he was called to the interview, selected by the Committee and appointed by resolution dated 27-8-1977 (annexure-3) of the Syndicate. There was absolutely no uncertainty. There was no question of the Petitioner's joining the college within one month of the appointment. It was only a question of upgradation of the Petitioner's status and salary. According to Dr. Dash, the Syndicate cannot by a subsequent resolution override an earlier decision taken by it. In such an even, it shall have to refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. This having not been done, the resolution in annexure-4 is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that if the Petitioner had no requisite qualification for appointment as a Reader, opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 had also not the requisite qualification as per the advertisements. He pointed out that in spite of the order of injunction issued by this Court not to appoint any Reader, the University has appointed opp. party No. 4 as a Reader subsequent to the passing of such order. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the first advertisement (annexure-1) was superseded by the second (Annexure-2) wherein higher qualification, experience and scale of pay were prescribed and the Petitioner was not qualified to be considered for appointment as a Reader as he had not passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. The recommendation of the Committee was a pious wish. The Syndicate also in its resolution in Annexure-3 clearly mentioned that the Petitioner may be appointed as Reader in Electronics after he gets his M.Sc. (Engineering) Degree. Passing of M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination by the Petitioner was an uncertain event. Thus the Petitioner had not the requisite qualification for the post. It is also submitted that as the Petitioner himself referred the matter to the Chancellor u/s 20(2) of the Act and the Chancellor decided against the Petitioner, Section 20(2), even if applicable to the case of the Petitioner, has been fully complied with. Further, under the provisions of Section 5(7) of the Act, the dispute in the matter of the first resolution (Annexure-3) of the Syndicate was laid before the Chancellor by G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) and was considered along with the reference made by the Petitioner and the Petitioner's reference was rejected. 6. Further, under the provisions of Section 5(7) of the Act, the dispute in the matter of the first resolution (Annexure-3) of the Syndicate was laid before the Chancellor by G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) and was considered along with the reference made by the Petitioner and the Petitioner's reference was rejected. 6. The main question for consideration is whether Section 20(2) of the Act has application to the facts and circumstances of the present ease and if so whether it has been complied with. In pursuance to the advertisement in Annexure-1, the Petitioner submitted his application for the post of Reader in Electronics. There was a subsequent advertisement in Annexure-2 in which higher qualifications, experience and scale of pay were prescribed for the same post. But it was made clear that those who had applied in pursuance to the first advertisment need not apply again. The Petitioner who was already a lecturer was called to the interview and was found suitable by the Committee. The Committee was well aware of the position that the Petitioner had not by then passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination and had submitted his dissertation for the final part (4th semester). So his name was recommended. The Syndicate by its resolution in Annexure-3 also considered this and accepted the recommendation of the Committee and resolved that the Petitioner may be appointed as a Reader in Electronics after he got his M.Sc. (Engineering) Degree. Section 20(2) of the Act reads thus: 20.(2) The teachers of the University shall be appointed (by the Syndicate) on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of: (a) the Vice-Chancellor; (b) the Director of Public Instruction, Orissa ; (e) three experts selected by the Syndicate; (d) one member to be elected by the Syndicate from amongst the remaining members thereof. (2a) xx xx xx (Provided that in case the Syndicate differs from the recommendation of the Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final). According to the proviso, if the Syndicate differs from the recommendation of the Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall he final. In this case the Syndicate had not differed from the recommendation of the Committee and had accepted the same. It is to be seen whether the Syndicate, in its subsequent meeting can overrule its earlier decision. In this case the Syndicate had not differed from the recommendation of the Committee and had accepted the same. It is to be seen whether the Syndicate, in its subsequent meeting can overrule its earlier decision. Nothing has been placed before us to show that the Syndicate has such a power. Assuming that, the Syndicate can reconsider its earlier decision by which the recommendation of the Committee was accepted and differ from the recommendation, it is incumbent on the syndicate to refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. No doubt, this has not been done in this case. The Syndicate under no circumstance can decide the matter by itself. The opposite parties rely on the order of the Chancellor dated 2-3-78 (Annexure-D/4) and take the plea that Section 20(2) of the Act has been fully complied with. As is evident from the provisions of that section, the teacher of the University shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendations of the Committee. In this case the Syndicate by its resolution in Annexure-3 accepted the recommendation of the Committee and said that the Petitioner be appointed subject to his passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. As is apparent, the Syndicate has not differed from the recommendation made by the Committee. But by a subsequent resolution as per Annexure-4, the Syndicate has overruled the earlier decision. This, in our opinion, is not correct and the Syndicate has no power to do so. The decision is to be made by the Chancellor and the Syndicate should have referred the matter to the Chancellor for his decision. This has not been done. If things are to be done in a particular way as on-joined under the provisions of a statute, it should be done in that way and not by any other mode. Merely because the Petitioner made an application to the Chancellor against the injustice done to him, and the Chancellor passed Some orders thereon, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 20(2), proviso have been complied with. The requirement of the provision is to be regarded as imperative. Moreover as is apparent from Annexure-D/4 the order of the Chancellor is dated 2-3-1978. By then the Petitioner had already passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. 7. The requirement of the provision is to be regarded as imperative. Moreover as is apparent from Annexure-D/4 the order of the Chancellor is dated 2-3-1978. By then the Petitioner had already passed the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the resolution of the Syndicate in Annexure-4 so far as it affects the Petitioner is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and should be quashed. The resolution of the Syndicate in Annexure-3 appointing the Petitioner to the post of Reader in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering in the University College of Engineering, Burla therefore, stands and the Petitioner is deemed to have been appointed as per that resolution. The Petitioner has prayed to quash the appointment of G.P. Panda, (opp. party No. 4) as Reader as it was in violation of the order of injunction dated 26-6-1978 passed by this Court. But it has been made clear by the learned Counsel for the University that the appointment of opp. party No. 4 was made as the post fell vacant subsequent to the filing of this writ petition and due to non-availability of teachers the education of the students suffered a lot. We are satisfied with this explanation and do not think it proper to quash the subsequent appointment of opposite party No. 4 to the post of Reader in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering. The writ petition is also not pressed by the Petitioner against opposite party No. 3. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The resolution in Annexure-4 as far as it affects the Petitioner is quashed. The resolution of the Syndicate in annexure-3 should be treated as valid and the Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as per the said resolution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B.N. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed