JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) AWADESH Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa is a duly established University governed by Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (Act no. 22 of 1973 ). One of the authorities of the University is "the Court" (Section 19 of adhiniyam ). The Court is constituted in accordance with the various provisions contained in Section 20 of the Adhiniyam. Person to be elected to the Court fall under various categories. One of such categories is that of lecturers falling under group b of section 20. All the lecturers borne on the teaching staff of the colleges affiliated to the university form the electorate and are required to elect specified number of lecturers to represent them in the Court. Statute No. 25 framed under the Adhiniyam contains the procedure for election of the teachers representatives on the Court. Clause 3 of this statute requires the Registrar of the University to first prepare a separate provisional electoral roll for election under each item of group b of sub-section (1) of section 20. this includes the electoral roll for electing lecturers. This provisional electoral roll has to be published in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause 3 of Statute 25. Clause 4 then provides that any teacher whose name is not included in the provisional electoral roll may make in Form-1 a claim for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll. Such claims are required to be delivered to the Registrar in person or by registered post in a sealed envelope with "claims and Objections" superscribed thereon. After such claims for inclusion of names in the electoral roll are made, they are required to be scrutinised and inquired into by a Committee consisting of two Deans of Faculties nominated by the kulpati and the Registrar at the University Office on the date fixed for the purpose and the teacher filing the claim or the objection shall be entitled to be present at such scrutiny. One of the Deans appointed by the Kulpati shall record its decision in writing. Sub-clause (iii) of clause 5 of the Statute No. 25 then provides for an appeal to the kulpati by the person preferring a claim to the Kulpati whose decision in the matter shall be final. Such an appeal is to be lodged in writing with the Registrar within two days of the date of the decision appealed against. (Clause 5 of the Statute ). Such an appeal is to be lodged in writing with the Registrar within two days of the date of the decision appealed against. (Clause 5 of the Statute ). According to clause 6 after all the claims and objections have been decided, the provisional electoral roll may be revised, if necessary and the final electoral roll shall be prepared and published by the Registrar. ( 2. ) BY notification dated 23-1-1984, the Registrar of Awadesh Pratap Singh vishwavidyalaya, Rewa published the programme for holding election of members of the Court from categories falling in group b of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the adhiniyam. True copies of the provisional electoral roll were also annexed with the said notification and were thus published as required by sub-clause (ii) of clause 3 of Statute 25. The petitioner who claims to be a lecturer working in the department of Sociology at sudarshan Mahavidyalaya, Lalgaon, district Rewa affiliated to the Awadesh Pratap singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa found his name missing from the electoral roll. He, therefore, made a claim in the prescribed form for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll. When his claim came for consideration before the Committee appointed under clause 5 (i) of Statute 25, it found itself unable to take any decision either way on the claim so made and, therefore, by order Annexure c left the matter to be decided by competent authority. It may be mentioned that the Committee in that order Annexure c did not specify or indicate as to which this competent authority is. It appears that thereafter the matter was taken up by some authority who concluded from certain correspondence between the University and the Authorities of the College and also from certain other documents available in the University, that some 12 teachers including the petitioner were not appointed according to rules and, therefore, their appointments were not recognised by the University; In accordance with this decision the Registrar seems to be of opinion that inclusion of the names of the petitioner and other lecturers working in the college similarly placed shall indirectly tantamount to giving recognition to their such appointments. It is the Registrar who finally rejected the claim of the petitioner and also similar claims made by some other lecturers of the college. It is the Registrar who finally rejected the claim of the petitioner and also similar claims made by some other lecturers of the college. This order is Annexure e. The petitioner is aggrieved by these two orders, annexure c and e and by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays that these two orders be quashed and the name of the petitioner and that of other teachers similarly situated be directed to be included in the electoral roll of lecturers. ( 3. ) DENYING the claim, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 i. e. University and the Registrar of the University who are the only contesting respondents submitted that the petitioner on the date of notification i. e. 23-1-1984 was not a validly appointed teacher in Sudarshan mahavidyalaya and, therefore, his name was rightly excluded from the electoral roll. ( 4. ) THIS petition should be allowed on the short ground that when the petitioner claiming to be working as a lecturer in an affiliated college has made a claim for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll, the claim could be disposed of only by a committee appointed under Clause 5, sub-clause (i) of Statute 25 is to discharge its function according to that Statute. It is required to take a decision upon such a claim or any objection that may be filed under various sub-clauses of Clause 4 of the Statute 25. This Committee cannot leave that matter just saying that it is unable to take a decision in the matter and leave it to be decided by some other competent authorities [***]. We do not find any provision in Statute 25 or elsewhere in any other Statute or the Adhiniyam for such a course. No such provision was brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing on either side. This is more so because of the decision of the committee is made subject to decision in appeal by the Kulpati. In case the person aggrieved chooses to prefer such an appeal under sub-clause (iii) of clause 5 of Statute 25 it is the decision of the Kulpati in appeal against the decision of the Committee which is rendered final. This is more so because of the decision of the committee is made subject to decision in appeal by the Kulpati. In case the person aggrieved chooses to prefer such an appeal under sub-clause (iii) of clause 5 of Statute 25 it is the decision of the Kulpati in appeal against the decision of the Committee which is rendered final. Since in the present case, the Committee to whom the petitioner preferred a claim for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll left the matter undecided, its order Annexure c has to be quashed as wholly without authority of law. As a necessary corollary the order, Annexure e passed by the Registrar consequent upon the opinion expressed by some person described in that order as competent authority [***] has also to be quashed as apparently the clause 5 of Statute 25 does not leave the matter of claim or objection preferred under Clause 4 of Statute 25 to be decided by the Registrar of the University and that too on the opinion of some authority not provided for anywhere under that Statute or the Vishwavidyalaya adhiniyam. The Committee and the Registrar have acted quite contrary to the provisions of clause 5 of the Statute 25 and the action taken by them in passing the orders, Annexures c and e and thus, finally rejecting the petitioners claim for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll has, therefore, to be quashed. Order Annexure e passed by the Registrar is wholly without jurisdiction. The matter, therefore, has to go back to the Committee for reconsideration of the petitioners claim and for a fresh decision thereon in accordance with law. ( 5. ) RETURN of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, i. e. Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar or the University is that the petitioner is not a validly appointed teacher as he has not been duly appointed in accordance with the college code nor is a teacher recognised by any university. It is stated that the petitioner is an aided-institution and receoves grant-in-aid from University, Grants Commission and, therefore the appointment of any teaching staff in such aided institution has to be made in accordance with the rules framed under the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, (Act No. 20 of 1978 ). It is stated that the petitioner is an aided-institution and receoves grant-in-aid from University, Grants Commission and, therefore the appointment of any teaching staff in such aided institution has to be made in accordance with the rules framed under the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, (Act No. 20 of 1978 ). He further prays that the name of the petitioner was not communicated to the University under Clause 16 (4) of the Statute 28 by the Principal of the College on or before 23-1-1984. The submission; therefore, is that being not validly appointed as a lecturer, the petitioner cannot be treated as a teacher within the meaning of sub-clause (b) of clause 1 of Statute 28. The respondents themselves have filed a document R-4. This document is a list of teachers working on the Staff of Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya. It is signed by the Principal and appears to have been communicated to the University. It shows the petitioner as ad hoc lecturer in that college from 1st August, 1983. The petitioner has also filed a certificate from the principal of the College showing the petitioner as a lecturer working in that college on the scale of pay sanctioned by the University Grants Commission. This certificate is dated 11-2-1984. According to the Statute 28 (Clause 1 (d)) teacher means members of the teaching staff of a college and includes the Principal. Clause 16 of Statute 28 tells us the manner in which the appointment to any teaching post in the college is to be made. According to that clause such appointments to the teaching post in the college are to be made oh recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed under Clause 17 of the Statute 28. However, Clause 18 (1) provides that no person shall be appointed to be a full time salary teaching post in the college except on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Statute. It further provides that if the appointment to a teaching post is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot be delayed without detriment to the interests of the institution, the Governing Body may make such appointment without obtaianing the recommedation of the Committee of Selection but the person so appointed shall not be retained on the same post for a period exceeding six months. It will, thus appear that a teacher can also be appointed without the recommendation of the Selection committee and in the manner laid down in clauses 16 and 17 of Statute 28 when the interest of the institution requires such appointments to be made, but life of such appointments cannot exceed six months. The term teachers within the meaning of clause 1 (d) of the Statute 28 shall also include teachers appointed without due selection by the Committee of Selection and for maximum period of six months in accordance with proviso to sub-clause (1) of Clause 18 of Statute 28. ( 6. ) THE respondents contention, however, is that these appointments have not even been made by the Governing Body of the college as required by proviso to clause 1 of Statute 28. This objection appears to have been taken for the first time in the return. Even, the order Annexure e does not indicate that the petitioners name has not been included in the electoral roll for this reason. It may, therefore, be not possible in these proceedings to return any definite opinion on this question. Since we are remitting the case back to the committee for reconsideration of the petitioners claim for inclusion of his name in the electoral roll, the respondents shall be at liberty to raise this objection before the Authority which shall decide the claim on merits after giving due opportunities to both the parties to substantiae their claim in their behalf. ( 7. ) THE petition is allowed. The impugned orders, Annexures c and e are quashed and the matter is sent back to the Committee constituted under Clause 5 of statute 25. The Committee shall decide the petitioners claim in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner. ( 8. ) I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned brother Hon. Shri Justice B. C. Varma but in spite of my efforts I have not beep able to persuade myself to agree with the same. I am therefore recording my own opinion on the subject. ( 9. ) I start this opinion with a lament. In our system of administration of justice, plurality of judges forming a bench appears to be the normal rule. I am therefore recording my own opinion on the subject. ( 9. ) I start this opinion with a lament. In our system of administration of justice, plurality of judges forming a bench appears to be the normal rule. The rationale behind the system appears to be to ensure just and fair decision by pooling wisdom and experience. It also indicates our commitment to the good old saying that justice should not only be done, but must also appear to be done. My personal experience, however makes me feel that the system is heading towards a total failure. There is almost a total lack of communication between judges forming the bench and consequently pooling of knowledge or experience remains absent. Each judge functions as an individual clinging to his point of view with determination, unless he becomes unconcerned with the matter and indifferent to the decision. The present case only illustrates the point and should serve as an example. During the course of hearing both of us had freely and frankly expressed ourselves by taking opposite stands. It is the privilege of the senior judge to either write the opinion himself and send it to another judge. There is no rule and no tradition seems to have developed about consultation with each other and thereby develop a consensus. In the absence of consultation, there was no exchange of thoughts and ideas. The result is two almost opposite opinions on the matter requiring a third judge to resolve the difference. Since impartiality and commitment to justice is beyond doubt, there is no reason why this difference should not be first resolved by the members of the bench. Apparently there is urgent need for re-orienting our approach and developing conventions. ( 10. ) IN my humble opinion the petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that it is not the practice of this Court to issue any futile writ. What is under challenge in the present petition is the right of the petitioner to be included in the final electoral roll so that the petitioner can exercise his right to vote at the election of the teachers representatives on the University Court in accordance with clause (l) (ii) of statute 25 made under the provisions of M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Since then, elections have taken place and result declared. Since then, elections have taken place and result declared. In such a situation issuance of any writ by this Court to include the petitioners name in the electoral-roll will necessitate setting aside election and thereby unsettle and disturb the constitution of Court. In view of elections having taken place, it must be held that the present writ petition has become infructuous or it will be futile and unnecessary to issue any writ. In K. N. Guruswami vs. State of Mysore and others AIR 1954 SC592, Suresh vs. Vasant AIR 1972 SC 1680 and Balmadies Plantations vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1972 sc 2240 the Supreme Court has also held that the Court should not issue a writ if the same was not likely to serve any useful purpose. Similarly, this Court in Zabiduddin siddiqui vs. State of M. P. 1979 (1) M. P. W. Note 277 while dealing with a petition challenging formation of wards in a Municipal Committee refused to grant any relief to the petitioner as in the meantime election of Municipal Committee had taken place and formation of wards could be challenged in an election petition. According to this Court, election of Municipal Committee during the pendency of the petition was sufficient to declare the petition having become infructuous and dismiss the same, There is no reason why this decision should not be followed in the instant case. ( 11. ) EVEN otherwise on merits I do not find arty justification for including the name of the petitioner in the final electoral roll. The provisional electoral roll was notified on 23-1-1984 and hence the claim of the petitioner will require consideration as on that date. The petitioner was admittedly working as a lecturer on probation at the Sudarshan mahavidyalaya, Lalgaon. It is not in dispute that he was not appointed in accordance with clause 16 (1) of the college code i. e. statute No. 28 which gov ems such appointment. That appears to be the reason by the Principal of the College did rot include the petitioners name in the list submitted by him to the University (Annexure R-1) This is the list of teachers qualified and duly recognized by the University. There is a note at the end of this list that "list of non-recognised lecturers is attached. That appears to be the reason by the Principal of the College did rot include the petitioners name in the list submitted by him to the University (Annexure R-1) This is the list of teachers qualified and duly recognized by the University. There is a note at the end of this list that "list of non-recognised lecturers is attached. " The said list appears to be the list filed as Annexure R-4 and shows the petitioner at serial No. 2 working as a lecturer on probation. Col. 8 of this list indicates that the petitioner worked from august, 1983 to October, 1983 as ad hoc and from November, 1983 he was working on probation. There is no dispute that the petitioners appointment has not been recognized by the University. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner however is that even an ad hoc lecturer is a "teacher" within the meaning of clause (1) (ii)of Statute 25 and is therefore entitled to be included in the electoral roll. It may not be possible to disagree with the petitioner with his assertion that he is also a teacher, as teaching post would include a lecturer in the college appointed under the College Code. The question, however, is whether a teacher who has ho right to hold the post is entitled to be included in the final electoral roll ? It cannot be disputed that whole purpose of preparing the final electoral roll is to ensure that an elector exercises his right to be the candidate and vote at the election. In case a person is not qualified, to be a candidate, inclusion of his name in the electoral roll is not permissible. A candidate should therefore be a person who is able to offer himself as such on the date of nomination and continues as such up to the date of election. He should also be able to represent the category of lecturers after his election. If these purposes have to be achieved, a teacher must be a lecturer on the date of nomination, must continue as such on the date of election and should be able to "represent" other lecturers after election. Only a person who is sure of his leadership on the date of nomination and on the date of election would alone be qualified to be a candidate. Only a person who is sure of his leadership on the date of nomination and on the date of election would alone be qualified to be a candidate. If a candidate has to represent other lecturers, he must also be sure of his continuing as a lecturer even after his election. If a lecturer is not sure of continuing as such on the date of election, he must be held as hot qualified to be a candidate. If a candidate is not able to act as a representative after his election the whole object and purpose of his being a candidate would be frustrated. It is well established that an ad hoc appointment is purely a stop-gap arrangement and confers no right whatsoever on such an appointee. An ad hoc appointment is also terminable at any time. Under the circumstances an ad hoc lecturer cannot assure that he will continue as a lecturer upto date of election. He cannot assure that he would be able to represent other lecturers in the University Court for which he is being elected. Obviously therefore an ad hoc appointee cannot help to achieve the object and purpose of the provision. Indeed chances of defeat of purpose and object of the provision are rather bright if ad hoc lecturer is held entitled to be a candidate for such election. If ad hoc appointment comes to an end after the date of nomination, but before elections, election process will frustrate and would be required to be renewed. If such an appointment comes to an end after election, such a candidate would not be able to represent others, in which case the purpose of his election would remain frustrated. Under the circumstances, if object and purpose of the provision is any guide, the word "teacher" in statute 25 (l) (iii) cannot include an ad hoc teacher. It cannot be seriously disputed that if the language used in a provision is capable of bearing more than one contraction, the consequences resulting from adopting a construction would be valid consideration for determining the true meaning of the word. A construction that results in absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency has to be rejected and preference given to that construction which avoids such results, (G. P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Ed. Page 95 ). A construction that results in absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency has to be rejected and preference given to that construction which avoids such results, (G. P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Ed. Page 95 ). It is also a well-established principle of construction that, "the words of statute, when there is doubt about their meaing are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of enactment and object which the legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained. " Workmen D. T. E. vs. Management D. D. T. E. AIR 1958 SC 353 at page 356, date of U. P. vs. C. Tobit AIR 1958 SC 414 at page 416 and Santa Singh vs. State of punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386 at Page 2389. In this connection it will be useful to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra vs. Manikrao AIR 1977 SC 2171 wherein the Supreme Court was required to consider the meaning of the words "last date" appearing in section 23 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which permits inclusion of the names in the electoral roll till the last date for making nomination for an election in the concerned constituency. Section 33 (1) of the said Act provides that the nomination paper shall be presented between 11 O clock in the forenoon and 3 O clock in the afternoon. Reading these provisions together in the light of object behind them the Supreme Court construed the words "last date" as follows :-"if the purpose of the provision were to illumine its sense, if the literality of the text is to be invigorated by a sense of rationality, if conscionable commonsense were an attribute of statutory construction, there can hardly be any doubt that the expression "last date for making nominations" must mean the last hour of the last date during which presentation of nomination papers is permitted under section 33 of the 1951 Act. " (Page 2180 ). " (Page 2180 ). Under the circumstances, it should be the obligation of this Court to interpret the words every teacher appearing in clause (1) (ii) of the Statute 25 in a manner as to give effect to the true meaning and purpose of the provision and also the intention of makers of the statute. What then is the purpose of the provision ? Section 20 provides for constitution of a Court which, under section 22 of the Act; acts as an advisory body in all matters relating to the University and also reviews, from time to time, the broad policies and programme and suggest measures for improvement and development of the University. Such a body is obviously intended to secure proper functioning of a University which is supposed to be an apex educational institution. Representation of lecturers in such a body not only reflects the democratic pattern of the Court but also the desire of legislature to make it more representative. The words "every teacher" appearing in clause (l) (iii) of the statute 25 must therefore receive a construction which should further the aforesaid object and purpose. If these words were to include an ad hoc teacher who is not likely to continue either upto the date of election or after that and is thereby not able to represent, the object of election and representation would remain frustrated. Under the circumstances, the words "every teacher" appearing in this provision must include only those teachers who are able to act as representatives of their category. This meaning is also clear from the subsequesnt words "qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election. " The word "qualified" is not a surplusage and indicates that only those who are qualified to be a candidate and vote at election can only be an elector and only such persons are entitled to be included in the final electoral roll. Who is qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election ? Such a person must obviously be in a position to show that he is a lecturer on the date of his nomination and is sure of continuing as such upto the date of election. An ad hoc lecturer whoes appointment is likely to come to an end before the date of election will not be able to vote at the election and will not be entitled to be an elector. An ad hoc lecturer whoes appointment is likely to come to an end before the date of election will not be able to vote at the election and will not be entitled to be an elector. This is the clear meaning of the expression and sufficiently indicates that every lecturer is not covered by the expression "any teacher" appearing in clause (l) (iii) of statute 25. The question, however, is whether ail ad hoc appointees are excluded. The statute 25 does not provide qualifications or disqualifications for being chosen to fill the seat but clause (12) permits the Registrar to examine nomination papers and reject any nomination if the candidate is not qualified or disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the statute made thereunder. This brings into the consideration of qualifications and disqualifications of a lecturer and permits the Registrar to examine whether a lecturer is qualified or disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat and an enquiry into this aspect of the matter must include an examination of his right to lectureship which group he must represent. Before a person can belong to a group of lecturers and can be said to be qualified to represent, it must be established that he is a lecturer himself and is entitled to continue as such so as to represent all other lecturers in the group. A person who has not been appointed on a regular basis in accordance with law and has no lien on the post cannot be said to be belonging to that group. Since his right to belong to the group of lecturers is itself absent, his capacity to represent the said group cannot be accepted. Such a teacher cannot be accepted as an elector qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election. In this view of the matter, the words "every teacher" appearing in clause (lj (ii) of Statute 25 cannot include ad hoc appointee and must mean a teacher regularly appointed as such and entitled to continue as a teacher. Person appointed as a stop gap arrangement or for a limited period must therefore be held as not qualified to be a candidate and hence not entitled to be included in the electoral roll. ( 12. Person appointed as a stop gap arrangement or for a limited period must therefore be held as not qualified to be a candidate and hence not entitled to be included in the electoral roll. ( 12. ) IF the facts of the present case are appreciated in the context of the above law, it will have to be held that the petitioner is not qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election and hence his name cannot be included in the final electoral roll. A perusal of the list dated 23-l-1984- (Annexure R-1) indicates that the petitioner is not shown as a qualified and duly recognized teacher of the college. It is true that his name appears in the list of non-recognised lecturers. The details given in col. 8 of the said list (Annexure r-4) indicates that he was orginally appointed as an ad hoc lecturer which appointment has been converted as on probation from 1-11-1983. It is the specific case of the respondents that the said appointment was made contrary to clause 16 (iv) of Statute 28, inasmuch as this was never reported to the University by the Principal. It is also submitted that the college being an aided institution getting grant from Ayog, was not entitled to make such an appointment under the rules framed under Act No. 20 of 1978. Rules 10 and 14of those Rules have been quoted in para 5 of the return and provide that every vacancy shall be filled by inviting applications in accordance with the provision of the College Code. Clause 16 (1) of the College Code provides for widely advertising the post inviting applications. This has not been done. Rule 14 (1) of the rules framed under act No. 20 of 1978 requires selection by a committee constituted in accordance with the said rule under the Chairmanship of Kulpati, which also has not been done. The appointment order converting the petitioners appointment as ah appointment on probation not being on record it is not possible to indicate that he was appointed by the proper appointing. authority i. e. governing body. It is therefore clear that the appointment of the petitioner was not made as required by the statute framed under the act and provision of Act No. 20 of 1978. authority i. e. governing body. It is therefore clear that the appointment of the petitioner was not made as required by the statute framed under the act and provision of Act No. 20 of 1978. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner was holding the post of the lecturer in the college so as to become qualified for. being a candidate and vote at the election of teachers representative oh the university Court. This is, however, not 10 say mat a temporary appointment for less than 6 months cannot be made by the governing body of the college. Even if it is assumed that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was made in the proper exercise of powers under the statute and was made by the competent authority, the said ad hoc appointment would not confer any right on the petitioner to be included in the final electoral roll. As far as the petitioners appointment on probation is concerned, the same could not be made except after election as noted aforesaid. Under the circumstances, change from ad hoc to probation cannot confer any right on the petitioner to be included in the electoral roll. ( 13. ) IN view of this, the controversy whether the petitioners objection was decided by the competent authority or not is only academic. I, however fully agree with the view taken by Hon. Varma J. that a was for the committee appointed under claw. , (5), sub-clause (i) of statute 25 to decide the objection of the petitioner and not have the same to be decided by the socalled competent authority. The competent authority is no doubt the committee under the aforesaid provision. ( 14. ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 15. The competent authority is no doubt the committee under the aforesaid provision. ( 14. ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 15. ) 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 impugend orders Annexures C and E should be quashed rejecting the reprsentation 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. ( 16. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya is a University constituted under M. P. Viswavidyalaya 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 respresentatives of Principals, Professors, Readers and Lecturers. So far as present case is concerned, under Rule 20 (l) (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. 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 bis 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 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 included1 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 appointments 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 31-3-1984 that elections may take place but result of the election from the Teachers constituency shall not be declared until further orders. ( 17. ) 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. ( 17. ) 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. 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 me Adhiniyam. For all intended purposes, the petitioner is a Lecturer and he is entitled to vote arid 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. 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. The appointments to the colleges are now on probation. The appointments to the colleges are now 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 23-1-1984 his appointment has been shown as ad hoc from 1-8-1983 (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. 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 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. ( 18. ) 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 23-1-1984, 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, X, however, opined that in view of the election having take 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. The petitioner was 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 anamalous 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 arrangements 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. ( 19. ) AFTER having heard the parties, I am of the view that the opinion expressed by gulab Gupta, J. is to be preferred man 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 adinterim 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 petitioners 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 29-2-1984. The post was neither advertised not 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. Obviously, the petitioner did not file any appeal but the representation was decided by the Registrar who was then acting as a 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 tile 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, m 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. ( 20. ) THEREFORE, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.