JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) ON a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, this petition has been referred to me to resolve the difference of opinion in this case. While B. C. Varma, J. is of the view that the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders Annexures C and E should be quashed rejecting the representation of the petitioner to include his name in the electoral roll of lecturers for electing their representative to the University Court, while according to Gulab Gupta, J. the petition ought to be dismissed firstly because it is an exercise in futility as the elections are over and no purpose can be served by now deciding this question and secondly the petitioner not being a Lecturer duly appointed as per requirements of law, he being an ad hoc lecturer or lecturer on probation, not entitled to be included in the voters list. Only regular lecturers duly appointed can be included in the list. ( 2. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya is a University constituted under M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The various authorities of the University have been enumerated in Section 19 including the court. Under Section 20 the Court shall consist of the persons enumerated in Groups A to E. Group B pertains to representatives of Principals, Professors, Readers and Lecturers. So far as present case is concerned, under Rule 20 (1) (xiv), 14 persons are to be elected by the Lecturers to the Court. Under Section 4 (xx) teachers of the University means Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research, with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or any College or Institution maintained or recognised by the University. Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya, Lalgaon, is a college affiliated to the respondent No. 1 University and is receiving grants-in-aid from M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Statute No. 25 prescribes the procedure for election of members to the Court. Under Clause 3, the Registrar is required to publish provisional list of electoral roll and circulate the same to the respective colleges. Under Clause 4, any Lecturer whose name has been omitted from the electoral roll may apply in the prescribed form for inclusion of his name. Statute No. 25 prescribes the procedure for election of members to the Court. Under Clause 3, the Registrar is required to publish provisional list of electoral roll and circulate the same to the respective colleges. Under Clause 4, any Lecturer whose name has been omitted from the electoral roll may apply in the prescribed form for inclusion of his name. Under Clause 5 on such an application being received, the same has to be scrutinised by the committee consisting of 2 Deans to be nominated by the Kulpati and the Registrar, respondents 2 and 3. Against the order of the Scrutinising Committee, appeal lies to the Kulpati under Sub-clause (3 ). The election programme was, announced by the Registrar on 23-1-1984 and on the same day provisional electoral roll was exhibited and circulated. As the petitioners name and names of 11 other Lecturers of the said College were missing from the electoral roll of Lecturers, he made an application for inclusion of his name. His application was forwarded to the Scrutinising Committee who held that only Lecturers regularly appointed as per the Adhiniyam are alone to be included in the electoral roll and not the ad hoc or irregular appointees. However, the Committee found difficulty in giving a final decision and referred the matter to the competent authority on 15-2-1984 which was the date of scrutiny. On the same day, the Registrar-respondent No. 3, also rejected the representation saying that since the appointment of the petitioner and the other 11 Lecturers were illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder, their names cannot be included in the electoral roll. The counting of votes was to take place on 7-4-1984 but in the meantime the present petition was filed and ad interim stay was obtained on 31-3-84 that elections may take place but result of the election from the Teachers Constituency shall not be declared until further orders. ( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is M. A. in Sociology from Banaras University and got 1st Class in the examination held in 1977. He was appointed in Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya for imparting teaching in the subjects Sociology and Political Science. The University granted affiliation to the College in the year 1982-83 and 1983-84. Similarly, M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog have given grant-in-aid to the college. He was appointed in Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya for imparting teaching in the subjects Sociology and Political Science. The University granted affiliation to the College in the year 1982-83 and 1983-84. Similarly, M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog have given grant-in-aid to the college. Therefore, the petitioner comes within the definition of teachers of University and furthermore he is also drawing salary of a Lecturer as fixed by the University Grants Commission as required under Rule 63 (5) of the Adhiniyam. For all intended purposes, the petitioner is a Lecturer and he is entitled to vote and stand as a candidate from the Lecturers constituency. As his name was found missing from the provisional electoral, roll, he submitted a representation for inclusion of his name but without deciding his representation, the Scrutinising Committee forwarded his representation to the competent authority without specifying who was that competent authority. It appears that his representation was referred to the Registrar who had no jurisdiction to decide the question about inclusion of the petitioners name in the electoral roll and he wrongly rejected his representation. Since there was no valid order by the Scrutinising Committee, there was no question of filing any appeal. However, the petitioner made a representation to the Kulpati. The respondents in their return contended that under Clause 3 of Statute No. 25 the names of only those are to be included in the provisional voters list who were functioning as Teachers on the date the election programme was announced i. e. 23-1-1984. Under Clause 16 (4) of Statute No. 28 (College Code), every change in the teaching staff of the College has to be immediately reported to the University by the Principal of the affiliated college. Under Statute No. 19, the University has to publish every year in the month of December seniority list of Professors, Readers, Lecturers etc. The name of the petitioner was not communicated to the University under Clause 16 (4) by the Principal before publication of the seniority list of 1983. Rightly, therefore, the petitioners name did not find place in the provisional voters list of Lecturers, but on 21-3-1984 the Principal of the College submitted two lists of its teaching staff one of those approved by the University and the other of those who were given ad hoc appointment and were then working on probation. Rightly, therefore, the petitioners name did not find place in the provisional voters list of Lecturers, but on 21-3-1984 the Principal of the College submitted two lists of its teaching staff one of those approved by the University and the other of those who were given ad hoc appointment and were then working on probation. The appointments to the colleges are now regulated by M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam of 1978. Rules have been framed regulating the appointments. Under Rule 10, applications for vacancies to non-government colleges shall be invited in accordance with the provisions of the College Code framed under Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. Under Rule 14 (1) for every non-government college for higher education, there shall be a selection committee consisting of Kulpati as Chairman and other members. So far as petitioner and 11 other Lecturers are concerned, the University was never intimated nor the posts were advertised as required under the rules. It appears that the Chairman of the Governing Body appointed these persons as he and the petitioner were interested in capturing the University Court. Therefore, bogus orders of appointment were issued. Under Clause 18 of the College Code, no person can be appointed as a full-time teacher in any of the colleges except with recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the Statute. In the petition the petitioner has not disclosed the date and the manner of his appointment but in the letter sent by the Principal on 23-1-84 his appointment has been shown as ad hoc from l-8-1983 (Annexure R. 4) While the petitioner in his representation (Annexure R. 5) gave the date of appointment as 8-7-1983 and the Chairman in his letter to the Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog gave the date of appointment as 2-11-1983. Therefore, the petitioners appointment by the Chairman and not even by the Governing Body of the College was a dubious appointment and cannot be recognised. Of course, it was open to the Governing Body to appoint ad hoc Lecturers but that could be only for a term of six months in case of emergency. Ad hoc Lecturers have as such no lien on the post and not being regular appointees, they have no right to be included in the voters list. Of course, it was open to the Governing Body to appoint ad hoc Lecturers but that could be only for a term of six months in case of emergency. Ad hoc Lecturers have as such no lien on the post and not being regular appointees, they have no right to be included in the voters list. Since the Scrutinising Committee did not have the record about the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer, they found difficulty and referred the matter to the Registrar who was then officiating as Kulpati also since the Kulpati had proceeded on leave. So the representation has been rejected by the Kulpati and is a valid and correct order. There is no contravention of any provision of law nor the petitioners any right affected. The petitioners appeal to the Kulpati was barred by limitation. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to B. C. Varma, J. It was incumbent on the Scrutinising Committee to decide the representation of the petitioner but they abdicated their function to the competent authority without specifying who the competent authority was. The Registrar was not the competent authority and, as such, the order rejecting his representation by him is without jurisdiction. So these orders Annexures C and E have to be quashed. Since the petitioner was working as a Lecturer in the college when the election programme was announced on 23-1-84, he was right in claiming inclusion of his name in the electoral roll of Lecturers. Even if the petitioner was an ad hoc Lecturer, still he was a Lecturer all right and had a right to vote. So he was of the opinion that the matter should be referred back to the Scrutinising Committee for deciding representation of the petitioner afresh and it would be open to the respondents to raise objection regarding inclusion of the petitioners name in the voters list. Gulab Gupta, J. , however, opined that in view of the election having taken place, the present writ petition has become infructuous or it will be futile and unnecessary to issue any writ. However, the petitioner was admittedly working as a Lecturer on probation and he was not appointed in accordance with the College Code nor in accordance with the rules framed under the Adhiniyam of 1978. His name was also not included in the annual seniority list of teachers of 1983. However, the petitioner was admittedly working as a Lecturer on probation and he was not appointed in accordance with the College Code nor in accordance with the rules framed under the Adhiniyam of 1978. His name was also not included in the annual seniority list of teachers of 1983. The petitioner was an ad hoc Lecturer, on , completion of his six months period he was again appointed on probation without there being any provision in the statute for such an appointment. An ad hoc Lecturer is not entitled to vote or stand in the election because if this is permitted, an anomalous situation may arise and even before the election his term may expire or it may expire after he is duly elected because the appointment is for a short tenure. So he no longer will be in a position to represent the Lecturers. Ad hoc appointments are purely stop-gap arrangments and confer no right whatsoever on such appointees. The purpose of the Adhiniyam will be frustrated if ad hoc Lecturers are allowed to vote and contest the elections. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard the parties, I am of the view that the opinion expressed by Gulab Gupta, J. is to be preferred than that given by B. C. Varma, J. though I do not agree that since election is over the petition has become infructuous, in view of the ad interim stay granted on 31-3-1984 staying the declaration of the result from the Teachers constituency. In case the petition has to be allowed, then it will be open to the petitioner to vote and contest the election and fresh election will have to be held after correcting the voters list from the Teachers constituency. Varma, J. has not considered that the petitioner was only an ad hoc lecturer appointed on 1-8-1983, so in any case his term would have expired on 29-2-84. The post was neither advertised nor the petitioner was appointed by the Selection Committee as required under the 1978 Adhiniyam and also under the College Code framed under Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam of 1973. The Scrutinising Committee did pass an order without deciding as to whether the petitioners name is to be included in the voters list and against such an order appeal lay to the Kulpati. The Scrutinising Committee did pass an order without deciding as to whether the petitioners name is to be included in the voters list and against such an order appeal lay to the Kulpati. Obviously, the petitioner did not file any appeal but the representation was decided by the Registrar who was then acting as a Kulpati. The Kulpati under the statute was the appellate authority and Varma, J. has overlooked that at the relevant time the Registrar was also acting as a Kulpati and, therefore, he had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the College Code and the rules framed under 1978 Adhiniyam. The petitioners name was not included in the seniority list of Teachers for the year 1983. As such, in the provisional voters list published on 23-1-1984 the petitioners name could not be included. For the first time, the Principal of the College intimated the University by his letter dated 23-1-1984 that the petitioner and 11 others were ad hoc Lecturers and are now on probation. The petitioner being an ad hoc Lecturer could not contest the election in view of the fact that his appointment was for a short tenure and could not represent the Lecturers for the full term as their representative in the Court, so it is difficult to understand how he can be permitted to vote in the election. The petitioner himself is not sure about the date of his appointment, in the petition no date is mentioned but in the letter of the Principal dated 23-1-1984 the date mentioned is 1-8-1983 while in the petitioners representation the date given is 8-7-1983 and the Chairman of the Governing Body has given the date of appointment to the Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog for receiving grant as 2-11-1983. There is no dispute that in the college staff only 7 posts were approved by the University and the Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and the petitioners name is not amongst these 7. For creating any additional post, prior permission of the Ayog is necessary and the post has to be duly advertised giving wide publicity so that better candidates may come for interview and the Selection has to be made by the Selection Committee chaired by the Kulpati. No such procedure was followed in the petitioners case. For creating any additional post, prior permission of the Ayog is necessary and the post has to be duly advertised giving wide publicity so that better candidates may come for interview and the Selection has to be made by the Selection Committee chaired by the Kulpati. No such procedure was followed in the petitioners case. It is said that he was given appointment by the Chairman of the Governing Body. It is only the Governing Body which can appoint an ad hoc lecturer for a period of six months. The words every teacher appearing in Statute No. 25 and the Rules must include only those teachers who are duly appointed. This is clear from the subsequent words "qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election. He must not only be a voter but must also be able to contest. There is much substance in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner and other 11 persons were given appointments solely With the purpose of capturing the Court. Subsequently, the College has advertised the posts of 12 Lecturers. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner has not produced his appointment order in order to show that he was duly appointed. Besides, the petitioner being an ad hoc appointee and that too being irregular, his name was not rightly included in the voters list of the electoral roll of Lecturers and his representation was rightly rejected by the competent authority. ( 6. ) THEREFORE, the petition deserves to be dismissed.