JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - Budh Vidyapeeth Degree College, Naugarh, Basti, a Degree College, is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. To administer the affairs of the Budh Vidyapeeth Degree College, Naugarh, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the College) a Committee of Management has been constituted under sub-cl. (d) of cl. (4) of S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the department of Ancient History in the said College on 17-7-1971 (sic) on a temporary basis though his services continued thereafter as well. Consequent to the advertisement for filling the post of a Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College, the petitioner also applied for being considered to the said post. A Selection Committee was constituted to recommend the name of a suitable person for the said post. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee which recommended him for appointment to the said post on 31-3-1976, to the Committee of Management of the said College. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Committee of Management of the College passed a resolution on 4-4-1976 that approval of the Vice Chancellor be obtained to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the College. Relevant records and documents along with the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the resolution of the Committee of Management were then sent by the Committee of Management to the Vice Chancellor on 5-4-1976 for approval. However, in view of no disapproval being conveyed or received by the Committee of Management from the Vice Chancellor the petitioner continued teaching in the said College without any interference or interruption. 2. Vide his letter dated 15-10-1977 the petitioner made a prayer to the Vice- Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University to approve his appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the College and more so in view of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee as well as the resolution passed by the Committee of Management. The Registrar of the Gorakhpur University vide letter dated 13-2-78 informed the petitioner that approval sought for to the post of Lecturer had been rejected by the Vice-Chancellor. The Registrar of the Gorakhpur University vide letter dated 13-2-78 informed the petitioner that approval sought for to the post of Lecturer had been rejected by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner in spite of the said communication dated 13-2-1978 of the Registrar represented to the Vice- Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University whereupon he was informed that the Vice- Chancellor, Gorakhpur University had already disapproved the appointment of the petitioner by his letter dated 14-5-1976. 3. Intriguingly such a disapproval if it was ever sent by the authorities of the Gorakhpur University was never received by the Committee of Management nor was acted upon as the petitioner continued working as Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College. The petitioner was even appointed as Examiner of the Gorakhpur University in the year 1977 in the subject of Ancient History. The petitioner was also asked by the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University vide his letter dated 19-4-77 to meet him in connection with some confidential work. Further the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University sent a letter dated 14-4-77 to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College to send necessary papers regarding the selection of the petitioner to the post of lecturer in the Ancient History Department of the College. A similar letter was again sent on 1-6-77. The Manager of the Committee of Management of the College again vide his letter dated 20-5-78 requested the authorities of the Gorakhpur University for according approval to the selection of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. 4. The petitioner also persisted in sending representation to the University Authorities and also submitted a representation to the Chancellor respondent No. 1. The petitioner was informed by the Under Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 25-10-1979 that as the matter did not require interference by the Chancellor the representation had been rejected. 5. 4. The petitioner also persisted in sending representation to the University Authorities and also submitted a representation to the Chancellor respondent No. 1. The petitioner was informed by the Under Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 25-10-1979 that as the matter did not require interference by the Chancellor the representation had been rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders contained in the letters dated 13-2-1978, 25-10-79 and 14-5-76 the petitioner filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of all the above orders and also for a direction to the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College as submitted by the Committee of Management pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee so constituted for the selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer. Such a petition was dismissed in limine by this Court on 7-4-1980 whereafter the petitioner preferred a Civil Appeal (Leave) No. 3413 of 1981 to the Supreme Court which was disposed of by the following order dated 18-12-1981 : "We are of the opinion that in view of the fact that there is no clear evidence, and we must make it clear that we say this on prima facie consideration of the matter showing that the Vice-Chancellor had (not?) conveyed his disapproval within a period of 30 days, it is necessary that the High Court should admit the writ petition and dispose of the matter on merits after hearing both the sides. We hope it will be possible for the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The appeal will stand disposed of in terms of the order." 6. In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court the petition was remanded and was admitted by this Court on 2-2-1982. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the Committee of Management of the said College had sent relevant records and documents along with the recommendations of the Selection Committee for approval of the Vice-Chancellor on 5-4-1976 in favour of the petitioner. Such relevant documents and records and the recommendations of the Selection Committee as also the resolution of the Committee of Management were received in the office of the Gorakhpur University on 6-4-1976. Such relevant documents and records and the recommendations of the Selection Committee as also the resolution of the Committee of Management were received in the office of the Gorakhpur University on 6-4-1976. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the fact that no disapproval of the Vice-Chancellor had been accorded within the stipulated period of one month from the date of the receipt of the relevant documents records nor was it received either by the Committee of Management of the said College or the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer would be deemed to have been approved by the Vice- Chancellor. The petitioner has contended that by introducing the Gorakhpur Vishwa Tritiya Sanshodhan Pari Niyamawali vide Gazette notification dated 20-6-1977 the necessary qualifications in respect of teachers to be appointed in an affiliated College of Gorakhpur University were relaxed on 20-6-1977. Such necessary amendments to the provisions of the First Statute of the Gorakhpur University stood relaxed whereby a candidate was required to obtain 48% marks in case he had been in continuous service as Lecturer for the last five years. Such Niyamawali was made applicable even to the candidates whose matters were pending for approval before the Vice-Chancellor and the petitioner thus contends that since his matter was already pending before the Vice-Chancellor he was entitled to get the benefit of such amendment in the Niyamawali of the Gorakhpur University. The petitioner has also submitted that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College on 17-7-1971 and continued teaching as such uptil 1-7-1977 and had thus completed five years of service as Lecturer in the said College. The petitioner had obtained more than 48% marks in all the examinations i.e. High School, Intermediate, B.A. and Post Graduate and thus the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of relaxation. 8. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not meet the Vice-Chancellor for the grant of the necessary approval and it was vide letter dated 13-2-1978 sent by the Registrar of the University that he was informed with reference to his letter dated 14-11-1977 that since the approval had already been rejected the question of its reconsideration did not arise. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not meet the Vice-Chancellor for the grant of the necessary approval and it was vide letter dated 13-2-1978 sent by the Registrar of the University that he was informed with reference to his letter dated 14-11-1977 that since the approval had already been rejected the question of its reconsideration did not arise. It has, however, been contended that in view of the said amendments in the Niyamawali the Vice-Chancellor was neither competent nor had he any jurisdiction to disapprove the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History of the said College. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that no disapproval was ever accorded the representation of the petitioner to the Chancellor was illegally rejected as informed vide letter dated Oct. 25, 1979 sent by the Under Secretary to the Chancellor stating that as the matter did not require interference of the Chancellor it had been rejected. 9. The petitioner vehemently contends that the letter dated 14-5-1976 sent by the Deputy Registrar of the Gorakhpur University, indicating that since the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary qualifications for being appointed as Lecturer the necessary approval was not being accorded, is an ante dated document. 10. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 the Chancellor, Gorakhpur University and respondent No. 2 the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University. The Committee of Management of the said College which has been arrayed as respondent No. 3 has not filed any counter-affidavit. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have firmly repudiated the allegations contained in the writ petition so much so that even the appointment of the petitioner Lecturer in the said College with effect from 17-7-1971 has not been admitted. It has been categorically asserted that as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications disapproval was made by the Vice-Chancellor on 10-5-1975 and such a disapproval was communicated to the Committee of Management of the said College by the Deputy Registrar (Affiliations) of the Gorakhpur University vide his letter dated 14-5-1976. 11. It has been categorically asserted that as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications disapproval was made by the Vice-Chancellor on 10-5-1975 and such a disapproval was communicated to the Committee of Management of the said College by the Deputy Registrar (Affiliations) of the Gorakhpur University vide his letter dated 14-5-1976. 11. In reply to the assertion of the petitioner that no disapproval was communicated by the University to the Committee of Management within one month it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that sub-section (11) of S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act was amended by U.P. Act No. V of 1977 and it was enforced with effect from 31st April 1977, and as such it was not applicable on 14-5-76. It was by this amendment that it was made necessary to convey to the Management the disapproval of the Vice- Chancellor within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the documents and earlier to that it was not incumbent on the Vice-Chancellor to convey the disapproval. It has further been contended that the letter dated 14-5-76 was despatched by post to the Principal, Budh Vidyapeeth Degree College and was entered in the despatch register at serial No. 12579 with the description "Prachin Itihas Ki Niyukti Ke Anumodan ke Sambandh Men". Such a letter which was despatched was never received back by the University and as such the presumption would be that it was delivered to the Management. As regards the letter dated 14-4-77 which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-8 to the writ petition it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that it was sent to collect certain information in view of a complaint having been received by the University that the petitioner had furnished wrong information about his qualifications. It has also been strongly contended that as the petitioner had only secured 53.5% marks in the M.A. Examination, less than the requisite percentage, disapproval was accorded by the Vice-Chancellor. 12. Counsel for the parties have been heard at great length. In order to have a fair appraisal of the stand of the parties it would be necessary to consider the material provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act with the corresponding changes having a hearing on the instant petition. 13. 12. Counsel for the parties have been heard at great length. In order to have a fair appraisal of the stand of the parties it would be necessary to consider the material provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act with the corresponding changes having a hearing on the instant petition. 13. The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Ordinance 1973 was promulgated by the Governor can the 18th June, 1973, and it came into force with effect from 18-6-1973. Later on the Ordinance was repealed by S. 76 of the U.P. State Universities Act and such Act (Act No. X of 1973) came into force with effect from 2nd Sept. 1973. By S. 76 sub-cl. (2) of this Act it was provided that anything done or any action taken under the said Ordinance subject to the provisions of sub-cl. (3) of S. 72 of this Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act as if it commenced on the 18th day of June, 1973. 14. Section 50 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) as it then was provided as under : "50. Statute how made : The first Statutes of the University shall be made by the State Government by notification in the Gazette and in the case of any existing University. for so long as the First Statutes are not so made, the Statutes as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. In so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall, subject to such adaptations and modifications whether by way of repeal, amendment, as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette provide, continue in force; and any such adaptation or modification shall not be called in question." (2) The Executive Council may from time to time make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1)" 15. The First Statutes being called the Uttar Pradesh First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) 1975 came into force on Aug. 1, 1975. The First Statutes being called the Uttar Pradesh First Statutes (Age of Superannuation, Scales of Pay and Qualifications of Teachers) 1975 came into force on Aug. 1, 1975. Statute No. 10 provides qualifications for Lecturers in affiliated and associated colleges and reads as under : "(1) In the case of a College affiliated to or associated with any University other than the Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the Faculties of Arts, Commerce. Science and Social Science, namely (a) a consistently good academic record with first or high second class (B plus) Master's degree in the subject concerned or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in such subject; and (b) M. Phil; degree of a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work. (2) If a candidate possessing the qualification specified in sub-cl. (b) of cl. (1) is not available or is not considered suitable, the management of a college may, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, appoint a candidate possessing consistently good academic record on the condition that he will have to attain the qualification referred to in that sub-clause within a period of five years from the date of his appointment : Provided that where the teacher so appointed fails to attain such qualification within the said period of five years, he shall not be entitled to yearly increments after such period, until he attains such qualification. Explanation : - The expression "consistently good record" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to Statute 8". 16. By this U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1974 sub-section (2) was also replaced and consequent to such replacement reads as under : "1(1-A) The State Government may by notification in the gazette amend either by way of addition, substitution or omission the First Statutes at any time within a period of one year from the date of commencement of such Statutes and any such amendment may be retrospective to a date not earlier than the date of such commencement." 17. Later on sub-s. (1-A) was added by the U.P. Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1974) which came into force on 25th Sept. Later on sub-s. (1-A) was added by the U.P. Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1974) which came into force on 25th Sept. 1974 providing : "The Executive Council may at any time after the expiration of the period of one year from the date of commencement of the First Statutes may make or amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (1A)." 18. Again with effect from 21st April 1976 the words "within a period of one year from the date of commencement of such Statute" in sub-s. (1-A) were substituted by the words "up to December 1976" by U.P. Act No. V of 1977. Further by U.P. Act No. V of 1977 the words "after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of commencement of the First Statute" were substituted by "after December 31, 1977". 19. Further by Act No. XII of 1978 with effect from December 1, 1977 both in the sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (2) the figure 1977' was changed to 1978' 20. After reading the relevant provisions of S. 50 of the Act it is expedient to examine the provisions as contained in S. 31 as it concerns the determination of the instant controversy. Section 31 sub-cl. (1) provides as under: "31. Appointment of Teachers: (a) 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." 21. Section 31(4) (d) relates to the appointment of teachers in affiliated or associated colleges (other than colleges maintained exclusively by the State Government) and is reproduced below : "(d) The Selection Committee for the appointment of other teachers of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) shall consist of (i) the Head of the Management or a member of the management nominated by him who shall be the Chairman;. (ii) the Principal of the College and another teacher of the College nominated by the Principal; (iii) two experts to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor; Provided that in the case of a college where there is no Principal or other teacher available for being a member of the Selection Committee under sub-clause (ii), the remaining members referred to in this clause shall constitute such Selection Committee. Provided further that in the case of colleges established and administered by a minority referred to in cl. (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the experts shall be nominated by the Management from out of a panel of five experts suggested by the management and approved by the Vice- Chancellor." 22. The only distinguishing feature appears to be that two experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor have to be members of the Selection Committee. Situations where a management does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee have been provided in S. 31(8) (b) which is quoted hereinbelow: "In the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college, if the management does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Management shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reason of such disagreement and his decision shall be final." 23. Sub-s. (11) of S. 31 provides the manner for the appointment of teachers in the case of an affiliated or associated college and the relevant provisions have been extracted as under : "(11)(a) No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor has been obtained. (b) The management shall, as soon as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendations of the Committee, along with other relevant documents to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. (b) The management shall, as soon as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendations of the Committee, along with other relevant documents to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. (c) The Vice-Chancellor, if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualifications or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed shall convey to the management his disapproval : Provided that if the Vice-Chancellor does not convey his disapproval within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the documents referred to in clause (b) or does not send to the management any intimation in connection therewith, he shall be deemed to have approved of the proposal." 24. Furthermore by U.P. Act No.V of 1977 which came into force on the 21st April, 1977 the existing clauses (11), (12) and (13) were substituted by clause (11). 25. With the above recitation of the relevant provisions of the Act the controversy can now be examined in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was appointed on 17-7-71 as a Lecturer in Ancient History Department in the Budh Vidyapeeth Degree College, Naugarh, Basti which was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. Learned counsel for the respondents have repudiated strongly the assertion of the petitioner that he was appointed as Lecturer in the said College with effect from 17-7-1971 and it is submitted that the assertion is without any basis. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the relevant records available with the University do not indicate such appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17-7-1971. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 (Committee of Management) could appoint a teacher only after the Vice-Chancellor was satisfied that the candidate possessed the minimum qualifications and the experience prescribed for the post and the procedure laid down in the Act and Statute for selection of teachers had been followed as provided in sub-s. (1) of S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 as amended by the U.P. Act No. XXIX of 1974. Refuge to the provisions of the Act taken by the counsel for the respondents does not appear to be merited and is in fact fallacious when the respondent No. 2 has no records about the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the said College on 17-7-1971. The denial appears to be bald. It may appear to be intriguing as to how the respondent No. 2 (University), is refuting the assertion of the petitioner of his having been appointed with effect from 17-7-1971 when in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1547 of 1981 arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 507 of 1980 an affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (University) was filed by Sri S. D. Misra, Office Superintendent of the Gorakhpur University wherein it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College by the Management on July 17, 1971. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit of Sri S. D. Misra, Office Superintendent reads as under : "That in regard to the Special Leave Petition may shortly submit that the petitioner was working purely in an ad hoc capacity in the third respondent College. He was appointed as Lecturer in Ancient History by the respondent College on July 17, 1971. The Selection Committee selected him at its meeting held on March 31, 1976." 26. It is thus manifest from the above admission that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Ancient History Department in the said College with effect from 17-7-1971 and any attempt to wriggle out of such admission is a futile exercise and in any case such an obdurate resistance can be of no avail to the respondents. 27. As already mentioned above the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee duly constituted on 31-3-1976 for the post of Lecturer and consequent to the recommendations of the Selection Committee the Committee of Management of the College passed a resolution on 4-4-1976 for the appointment of the petitioner to the said post. Necessary papers in respect of the recommendations of the Selection Committee as well as the resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the College were sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University on 5-4-76 for necessary approval. All such relevant records and documents were received in the office of the University on 6-4-1916. Necessary papers in respect of the recommendations of the Selection Committee as well as the resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the College were sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University on 5-4-76 for necessary approval. All such relevant records and documents were received in the office of the University on 6-4-1916. The controversy now orbits around the fact as to whether any disapproval was ever made by respondent No. 2. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents an attempt to steer out of this controversy has been made and is confined to the assertion that Sri Badri Narain Singh, Deputy Registrar (Affiliations) of the Gorakhpur University had addressed a letter dated 14-5-76 to the Manager, Budh Vidyappeth Degree College, Naugarh, Basti which reveals that in view of the fact that Sri Chandra Dev Dwivedi, petitioner, did not fulfil the necessary qualifications for the post the approval to his appointment was not accorded. In the counter-affidavit it is also stressed that the Vice-Chancellor respondent No. 2 had passed an order on 10-5-1976 to this effect and in view thereof the communication vide letter dated 14-5-76 was sent. However, in the letter dated 14-5-76 no mention has been made that any order much less the order dated 10-5-76 had been passed by the Vice-Chancellor respondent No. 2. Further another letter dated 14-4-77 was sent to the said College by Sri Madan Gopal Gupta, Registrar of the Gorakhpur University which was in the context of according approval in respect of the appointment of one Sri Janardan Prasad Shukla, Lecturer as well as Sri Chandra Dev Dwivedi (petitioner) Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said college. It has been clearly mentioned in this letter which has been attached as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, that further action for according approval in the case of Sri Janardan Prasad Shukla as well as petitioner was being delayed in view of the non-availability of certain records, viz. necessary certificates from High School to M.A. duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. It has further been stated in the said letter that verbal and written requests to furnish necessary information to the office of the Registrar by the said College have proved of no avail. necessary certificates from High School to M.A. duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. It has further been stated in the said letter that verbal and written requests to furnish necessary information to the office of the Registrar by the said College have proved of no avail. Further in the said letter the following documents were required to he submitted : (a) Original application along with annexures duly attested by a Gazetted Officer in respect of the post of Lecturer in Geography and in Ancient History; (b) Cutting of the advertisement in respect of both the posts (Geography and Ancient History); (c) Registered postal receipt through which the applicants were informed; (d) Copy of the interview letter along with the date. It was desired by the Registrar through the said letter that within five days of the receipt of the letter the relevant documents be sent for the perusal by the Vice-Chancellor, so that further action could be taken otherwise on the expiry of the above period the appointment would be rescinded and would then be not reconsidered. 28. It thus clearly emerges that till 14th April, 1977 the question of according approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College was not decided and the assertion on behalf of respondent No. 2 that disapproval was communicated by the University vide letter dated 14-5-1976 in view of the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 10-5-1976 appears to be a myth not founded on facts. 29. Again Sri Madan Gopal Gupta, Registrar of the University addressed a letter dated 1-6-1977 to the Manager of the said College in respect of the approval of the Lecturers. This letter was apparently in reply to the letter of the Manager of the said College dated 3-5-1977. By this letter the approval for the appointment in favour of Sri Janardan Pd. Shukla, Lecturer, Geography was not accorded as the incumbent did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications. It has further been mentioned in this letter that the relevant documents required by the University in respect of according approval for the post of lecturer Ancient History Department of the said College had not been received and the Manager of the College was called upon to send the same immediately so that the relevant documents could be sent to the Vice- Chancellor for necessary action. It would thus be clear from a perusal of the letter dated 1-6-1977 that no action whatsoever was ever taken by the University Authorities or the Vice- Chancellor in respect of according necessary approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer, It may not be out of place to mention here another significant fact that vide letter dated 5-5-1977 the petitioner was appointed as Examiner for the B.A. Part 11 Examination of the Gorakhpur University in the paper of Ancient History. Had the petitioner not been working as Lecturer of the said College the question of his being appointed as Examiner could not have arisen. 30. Furthermore we have seen above that the petitioner as well as the Management of the said College repeatedly requested the University Authorities to accord the necessary approval but on no occasion they were ever intimated out the approval having not been accorded by the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner, however, filed a representation to the Chancellor, on 23-3-1978 so that the necessary approval may be accorded in his favour but vide letter dated Oct. 25, 1979 the petitioner was intimated that in view of his representation dated 23-3-1978 it was not considered expedient by the Chancellor to interfere in the matter. Anyhow from the above correspondence as discussed above it is no- where emerging that the Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 10-5-1976 had ever refused to accord approval in favour of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in the said College. Even the correspondence discussed above nowhere reveals that any communication as contained in the letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever sent to the petitioner or to the Committee of Management of the said College. A letter dated Jan. 25, 1977 addressed to the Principal of the said College had been sent by Sri R. P. Ambast, Assistant Registrar of the University in which certain enquiries were made regarding entries in the application form of the petitioner, Lecturer. It would be necessary to extract the relevant portion of this letter to show that the petitioner was continuing as Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College. "I understand that the entries made therein are not correct. It would be necessary to extract the relevant portion of this letter to show that the petitioner was continuing as Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College. "I understand that the entries made therein are not correct. If it is so necessary enquiry be made in this connection and the person concerned should not only be disallowed to continue any more (Emphasis supplied)* but he should be prosecuted for this fraud before a court of law and the University be informed accordingly." 31. It is thus distinctly clear that had there been any disapproval of the Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated 10-5-1976 or had there been any communication by the letter dated 14-5-1976 of the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation) of the University it would not have been possible for the petitioner to have continued as Lecturer. Apparently in this view of the matter the order dated 10-5-1976 as well as the communication dated 14-5-1976 appear to have been fabricated and smack of ingenuity. We are thus of the view that to frustrate the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department, it has been contended that the Vice-Chancellor had not accorded the necessary approval vide his order dated 10-5-1976 and necessary communication was sent to the said effect to the management of the said college by the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation) vide his letter dated 14-5-76. To our dismay and surprise relevant and necessary records have not been produced before us which could have supported the truthfulness of the stand taken by the University and would have also exploded the myth of the contention of the petitioner that no disapproval was ever made by the Vice Chancellor. A body like the University of Gorakhpur would withhold such important documents which would have glorified its case appears to be intriguing and more so when the controversy as ignited would have been laid to rest. 32. Further refuge has been sought, as is being revealed from the assertions made in the counter-affidavit, that in fact the letter dated 14-5-1976 was despatched by the Office of the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University to the Committee of Management of the said College. 32. Further refuge has been sought, as is being revealed from the assertions made in the counter-affidavit, that in fact the letter dated 14-5-1976 was despatched by the Office of the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University to the Committee of Management of the said College. The order on 10-5-1976 was passed by the Vice Chancellor refusing to accord approval in favour of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Ancient History and the letter dated 14-5-1976 was written by the Deputy Registrar in pursuance thereof. Effect has been made to show that the said letter dated 14-5-1976 was despatched by the University Authorities by ordinary post and the despatch register would bear testimony about its being despatched. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing or behalf of the respondents that the said letter which was in fact despatched, as is evident from the entries in the despatch register, was never received back by the University and as such the presumption is that it must have been served on the addressee. It, however, does not appear to be convincing as to why such an important communication was sent by the University authorities through ordinary post. We are unable to agree with such a submission which on the face of it appears to be misconceived for a singular fact that the mode of service has been provided in S. 27 of the General Clauses Act reproduced below : "27. Meaning of service by post :- Where any (Central Act), or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." Apparently the University authorities chose not to send the letter as provided under law for effective service on the addressee and instead rejoiced in sending the same by ordinary post. We are thus of the view that there is nothing on record to satisfy us that the letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever served on the addressee viz. We are thus of the view that there is nothing on record to satisfy us that the letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever served on the addressee viz. Manager of the said College. A puerile attempt has been made on behalf of the respondent that the said original letter was available on record but has been surreptitiously removed by one of its official Sri S. D. Misra who was deputed along with the file for the preparation of the counter- affidavit to be filed before the Supreme Court. Assistance has been sought from the correspondence between the University and its counsel appearing for it before the Supreme Court, but to our mind it is of no avail. 33. Sri Adhbhut Prasad, Legal Assistant in the Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur has filed a supplementary affidavit in this Court on 25-11-1982. Relevant extracts from Para 4 are reproduced below to test the veracity of the assertions made on behalf of the respondent University that the letter dated 14-5-1976 was sent to the Manager of the said College : "This very order dated 10-5-1976 passed by the then Vice Chancellor was communicated by Sri Badri Narain Singh, Deputy Registrar (Affiliations) to the respondent 3 vide his letter dated 14-5-1976 a true copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The deponent has worked for a number of years with Sri B. N. Singh and he had opportunity to see him writing and putting his signature. Now he is not in the service of Gorakhpur University. He saw the original letter on a number of occasions. The original letter bore the signature of Sri B. N. Singh, Deputy Registrar (Affiliations). This original document, namely, the letter dated 14-5-76 was taken by Shri Shridhar Misra to the Supreme Court in connection with the appeal filed by the petitioner which was disposed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 18-2-1981." It does not appear to be convincing that the original of the letter dated 14-5-1976 remained lurking in the record and manifestly not despatched to the addressee. Why the original of the letter dated 14-5-1976 was kept on record is again for the respondents to explain which they have miserably failed to do so. Respondents have failed to establish that any such order dated 10-5-76 was ever passed or the letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever despatched. Why the original of the letter dated 14-5-1976 was kept on record is again for the respondents to explain which they have miserably failed to do so. Respondents have failed to establish that any such order dated 10-5-76 was ever passed or the letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever despatched. We are thus of the clear view that no action whatsoever was taken by the University authorities as well as the Vice Chancellor to accord or to refuse approval as required on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the resolution of the Committee of Management of the said college. There is thus no disapproval much less a valid and legal one in the eye of law which may prejudice or be disadvantageous to the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Ancient History Department, of the said College. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of S. 31(11)(b) and (c) of the Act. Such provisions have been quoted above. It was a mandatory requirement to communicate the disapproval within one month as provided in S. 31(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. We have already held above that no disapproval as maintained by the University vide its letter dated 14-5-1976 was ever served on the Committee of Management of the said College. Even on the receipt of the letters dated 14-4-77 and 1-6-77 sent by the management supplying necessary information to the University, the University had failed to accord the disapproval to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is thus entitled to the benefit of S. 31(11), (b) and (c) of the Act. 35. It is not the case of the University that any disapproval was later on sent. They have stuck to their plea that disapproval was communicated vide letter dated 14-5-76 but such assertions of the respondents have been repelled by us. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the State Government by G. O. dated 20-6-77 had amended retrospectively the Statutes as they stood and cl. 2(a) has been inserted in the Statute 11.13 of the Gorakhpur University Statutes. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully entitled to the benefit of the G.O. dated 20-6-77 which is applicable in its entirety to the petitioner. 2(a) has been inserted in the Statute 11.13 of the Gorakhpur University Statutes. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully entitled to the benefit of the G.O. dated 20-6-77 which is applicable in its entirety to the petitioner. The relevant G.O. dated 20-6-77 which is attached to the writ petition as Annexure : 13 is being reproduced below : 1. Short title and commencement. (1) These Statutes may be called the Gorakhpur University (Third Amendment) Statutes, 1977. (2) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the official Gazette. Amendment of Statute 11.13.2. In Statute 11.13 of the Gorakhpur University First Statutes, 1977. (a) After clause (2) the following clause shall be inserted and deemed always to have been inserted namely "(2A) if a candidate has served as a teacher continuously for a period of not less than 5 years before 1st July 1977 and has obtained an average of not less than 40 per cent marks in all examination from High School to Master's degree, the Selection Committee may relax the requirement prescribed in Clauses (1) and (2): Provided that if a candidate holds Master's degree in more subjects than one, then the marks obtained in the Master's degree in the concerned subject alone shall be taken into account." 37. From a perusal of the above G.O. it is evident that the aim and object of the aforementioned amendment is to protect the appointment of teachers who were appointed prior to the introduction of the minimum 54% marks in the Master's Degree as earlier the only requirement was that a candidate for being appointed as a Lecturer should have first or second class M.A. degree as contemplated in Appendix B of the Statutes of the Gorakhpur University 1956. The aforesaid amendment also provides for five years continuous teaching experience. The Principal of the said College had issued a certificate on 30-6-77 which has been attached as Annexure 15 to the Writ Petition certifying that Sri Chandra Dev Dwivedi (petitioner) had been working on the post of Lecturer, Ancient History in the said College with effect from May 17, 1971 and continued as such till June 13, 1977. The Principal of the said College had issued a certificate on 30-6-77 which has been attached as Annexure 15 to the Writ Petition certifying that Sri Chandra Dev Dwivedi (petitioner) had been working on the post of Lecturer, Ancient History in the said College with effect from May 17, 1971 and continued as such till June 13, 1977. From the certificate it distinctly emerges that the petitioner had been continuously working as Lecturer and had attained teaching experience for more than five years on the date of the passing of the said G.O. dated 20-6-77. The said G.O. was issued to relax the qualifications of the teachers and was intended to protect or save the previous appointment of such teachers. In view of the matter of approval being pending the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of S. 2(a) as his qualifications for the appointment to the post of Lecturer stood relaxed. Apparently by denying such a benefit to the petitioner who has continuously served on the post for more than five years the very intention of the amendment would stand frustrated in view of the fact that such an amendment was indeed beneficial and protective piece of legislation for the benefit of the persons affected. Further by not applying the relevant Statute 2(a) it would result in the vice of discrimination and would tantamount to an arbitrary action thus infringing Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department by his D.O. letter No. 3211/15-10-17 Shiksha (1) Section dated June 20, 1977, copy attached as Annexure 14 to the writ petition, addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, enclosing a copy of the amended G.O. dated 20-6-77 intimated that the G.O. has become effective from the said date. It has been clearly mentioned therein that the pending matters of approval which may be submitted henceforth should be decided on the basis of the requisite amendment. As we have already discussed above the letter dated 14-5-76 was never served on the Committee of Management of the said college and hence it would be deemed that in the matter of approval for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecture in Ancient History in the said College the said G. O. would be binding. As we have already discussed above the letter dated 14-5-76 was never served on the Committee of Management of the said college and hence it would be deemed that in the matter of approval for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecture in Ancient History in the said College the said G. O. would be binding. We are thus of the opinion that in view of the applicability of the G.O. dated 20-6-1977 in the case of the petitioner he is entitled to such protection as the G.O. mentions in the matter of approval. 38. The Registrar of the Gorakhpur University vide his letter dated 13-2-78 had initmated to the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor had already rejected the representation of the petitioner. It has thus been contended that the said order did not consider the impact of the G.O. dated 20-6-1977. Apparently there is no discussion of the G.O. dated 20-6-1977, and such non- consideration of the G.O. has deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to effectively represent his case under S. 68 of the Act before the Chancellor. It has thus been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 13-2-78 is a non-speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been recorded therein. In fact only the conclusion without any reasons has been intimated. 39. Further it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was denied of an opportunity of being heard. By the letter dated 13-2-1978 it has only been communicated to the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor has already rejected the approval. Indeed no date of such disapproval has been mentioned but as we have already held above that no order of disapproval was ever served on the management of the said College as presumably is thought of by the letter dated 14-5-76, it is thus not necessary to go into the various aspects of the letter dated 13-2-1978. 40. From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that respondent No. 2 had never rejected the approval for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department in the said College. 41. The letter dated 14-5-1976 is thus of no avail to the respondent No. 2. It is non est in law. 40. From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that respondent No. 2 had never rejected the approval for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History Department in the said College. 41. The letter dated 14-5-1976 is thus of no avail to the respondent No. 2. It is non est in law. In view of the G.O. dated 20-6-1977 and in view of the singular fact that the Vice Chancellor had not communicated the disapproval within one month as provided in law it would be deemed that the petitioner's appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ancient History in the said College stood approved. This petitioner is thus fit to succeed and the orders dated 13-2-78, 25-10-1979 and 14-5-1976 deserve to be quashed. 42. In the result the petition is allowed with costs and the orders dated 13-2-1978, 25-10-1979 and 14-5-1976 are hereby quashed. We further direct that the respondent No. 2 shall treat the petitioner as a duly appointed Lecturer in Ancient History Department of the said College.