JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1st November, 1983 and has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi. 2. The petitioner applied in the University of Jodhpur for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner was interviewed on 16th October, 1980 and she was found suitable and the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner for appointment. The recommendations were placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 94 approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee, subject to review the work load position. It was further observed that the appointment of persons from amongst the selected candidates will be made on the basis of work load position and as per the needs of the University. When the petitioner was not given the appointment on account of lack of work load in the University, she filed a writ petition challenging the action of the University by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1981. This Court by the order dated 14th July, 1983 directed the Vice Chancellor that he will consider the work load position and after objectively assessing the position he should consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. With these observations the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of. In pursuance of this direction the Vice Chancellor considered the work load position and found that there was no work load at that time so as to absorb the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi. He passed a detailed order (Annexure 1) dated 1st November, 1983. It is this order which has been challenged by filing the present writ petition. 3. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length and examined the factual aspect of it in detail in order to, see that if any injustice has been done to the petitioner. After examining the factual aspect I am of the view that the order of the Vice Chancellor does not warrant any interference. Mr. Parekh has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable because when the first writ petition was disposed of it was directed that the Vice Chancellor should examine all the aspects, therefore, all the contentions raised in that writ petition which are identical in this writ petition cannot be raised. Mr. Parekh has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable because when the first writ petition was disposed of it was directed that the Vice Chancellor should examine all the aspects, therefore, all the contentions raised in that writ petition which are identical in this writ petition cannot be raised. Secondly he submitted that this writ petition involves intricate questions of fact, therefore, this Court should not interfere in this matter. So far as first preliminary objection is concerned I am afraid it is not well founded. Simply because this court by the order dated 14th July, 1983 has remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor it will not ipso facto follow that the contentions raised by the petitioner stand disposed of. So far as second objection regarding questions of fact are concerned, it is true that it does involve complicated questions of fact but there is no bar for this court for doing justice, it can look into factual aspect if situation so warrants. But in view of the fact that I am satisfied that all questions of fact in this case do not warrant any interference, which I shall deal here in after. 4. Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition of work load is irrelevant. In similar department when work load was not there several persons were appointed, therefore, similar treatment should be given to the petitioner. The work load is available and for which he has referred number of documents. 5. The first and foremost question is that whether the order of the Vice Chancellor (Annexure-1) suffers from factual infirmity or not. I have perused the order of the Vice Chancellor, it is detailed one and has found that the Head of the Department of Hindi in its letter dated 26th February, 1981 indicated that there was teaching work load of 450 periods per week. This was scrutinised by the Vice Chancellor according to the time table, which was in force in March, 1981 and the actual work load was for 408 periods only. According to the teaching staff available in the Hindi Department there were 6 Readers, 17 Lecturers. This was scrutinised by the Vice Chancellor according to the time table, which was in force in March, 1981 and the actual work load was for 408 periods only. According to the teaching staff available in the Hindi Department there were 6 Readers, 17 Lecturers. They were sufficient to cope with the work load of 447 periods as per University norms of 15 periods per week per Reader and 21 periods per week per Lecturer (6 x 15 + 17 x 21 : 447). According to this he has inferred that the staff in the Hindi Department in March, 1981 was surplus. In this back ground the Syndicate did not recommend the appointment of the petitioner and only directed that she may be appointed subject to availability of work load. He has further discussed that Reader Shri S.N. Sharma retired in the Hindi Department on 27th April, 1981. He was sharing 15 periods only in a week. Even reducing 15 periods from work load of 447 then too the staff was sufficient to teach 432 periods whereas according to time table there were only 408 periods. It was further pointed out that there was increase of work load of 6 periods of Hindi in the Department of Commerce and six periods of Hindi in the K.N. College. Taking into account these 12 periods the work load comes to 420 periods and then too there was sufficient staff. He has further observed that even touching the position upto 14th September, 1981 there was only work load of 414 periods where as the staff was capable of handling 432 periods, as such there was no work load warranting appointment of the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that putting this condition like subject to work load is not warranted because Under Section 5(2) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Conditions for Appointment) Act, 1974, there is no such rider. It is true that there is no such condition Under Section 5(2) but the fact remains that such condition has been placed for the benefit of the institution and in case any vacancy arises during the period of 6 months then the persons who have been selected, they can be adjusted without any loss of time so that the teaching work may not suffer. There is no prohibition also that the University cannot recruit for the anticipated vacancies which may arise within six months period. Thus by this nothing turns on the matter in issue. By this the petitioner cannot be appointed in service without any vacancies being there. In fact it is for the syndicate to appoint or not to appoint. Syndicate after considering over the matter has laid down a condition that in case of work load the meaning thereby the vacancy, then the petitioner could be adjusted, if there is no work load then the petitioner cannot seek mandamus from this court that they should appoint the petitioner irrespective of vacancy being there. 7. Mr. Mirdul has next submitted that in some of the departments, where there was no work load, still the appointments have been given. In this connection he has invited my attention to various averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. He has also cited before me the cases of Vishnudas Hundumal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1636 , Virendra Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1775 , Sengara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1499 and Iron and Metal Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. M.S. Hasklal and Ors. 1984 LIC 192 and Harminder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr 1984 LIC 444 . I have gone through the factual averments and I am afraid that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not well founded. I have gone through the averments made by the petitioner in paras Nos. 8/2, 8/3 and 8/4 and have also gone through the reply filed by the University. The question before us is that whether in the Hindi Department any person over and above the work load has been given appointment or not. To draw analogy from the other departments like commerce, Botany or other department to come to the conclusion that inspite of there being no work load the mandamus should be given to appoint the petitioner will not be a correct approach. If any illegality has been committed and some persons have been appointed without there being any work load then that cannot be made yardstick in the other department to be followed. Two illegalities will not make the action legal. If any illegality has been committed and some persons have been appointed without there being any work load then that cannot be made yardstick in the other department to be followed. Two illegalities will not make the action legal. If in any other department an illigality has been committed and a person has been appointed over and above work load it is for the Syndicate to set their house right but not for this court to force the Syndicate or the University to commit illegality. In this connection Mr. Mridul has cited before me number of cases as referred to here in above. The ratio of all those cases are that the persons similarly situated should be given a similar treatment. It has not been able to point out that any person has been appointed in the Hindi Department over and above work load and the petitioner has been denied that treatment. Simply because some stray incidences of past that some persons have been appointed over and above work load that will not benefit the petitioner to secure appointment when there is no work load available in the department. Thus, this contention of Mr. Mridul is also without any basis. 8. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a work load whereby the petitioner can be absorbed. In this connection he has referred to paras 8, 9A and 9B. In this connection I have already dealt the work load position while dealing with the order of the Vice Chancellor. Mr. Mridul has submitted that there was work load in Commerce Faculty. There was work load in the K.N. College. But all those aspects have already been dealt by the Vice Chancellor in greater detail. Mr. Mridul has further relied on Annexure-5 the statement of teaching work load. In that also the Head of Department has stated that during this Sessions 1980-81 there was work load of 408 periods. This is what precisely the Vice Chancellor also stated in his letter. Thereafter the Head of Department has sent revised work load on 26th February, 1981 showing the inflated figure. But this aspect was examined by the Vice Chancellor and he has found that work load position has been inflated by the Head of Department whereas the actual work load is for 408 periods only. 9. Mr. Thereafter the Head of Department has sent revised work load on 26th February, 1981 showing the inflated figure. But this aspect was examined by the Vice Chancellor and he has found that work load position has been inflated by the Head of Department whereas the actual work load is for 408 periods only. 9. Mr. Parekh has also invited my attention by submitting the document of 18th December, 1981 in which he has pointed out the actual work load of whole of the Hindi Department comes to 414 periods only. Mr. Mridul has not been able to refute this aspect. Mr. Mridul has also referred to some documents and submitted that some of the appointments have been made in 1983. But that is beside the point because we have to examine the position during the period of six months i.e. from the date of recommendation of the Syndicate. The Syndicate recommended appointment on 15th March, 1981. We have to examine the position from 15th March, 1981 to 15th September, 1981. If any appointment has been made after this then they are not relevant. The appointments of persons which have been pointed out by Mr. Mridul are Nirmala Sharma and Ranvir Singh, they are of 1983 i.e. after September, 1981. The petitioner's recommendation remained alive for a period of six months only and if there was no work load during the period of six months from March to September, 1981 then that recommendation would lapse. As has been pointed out above that there was no work load from March, to September, 1981 therefore the petitioner cannot seek mandamus from this Court directing the University to appoint the petitioner. 10. Before parting with the case I would like to refer the judgment referred by Mr. Mridul in the case of Dr. Hukum Singh Bhati v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 580 of 1981 decided on October 13, 1983 . In that case it was clearly observed: "Obviously in the absence of the work load this court cannot force the University to appoint Chain Singh and Hukam Singh as that would be interference in the internal administration of the University, which is autonomous in the educational field." Thus, in this view of the matter I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Dismissed. *******