JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and Om Prakash, JJ. - By this petition Smt. Madhuri Singh, who was a lecturer in Geography Department of T.D. College, Jaunpur, prays for mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Education Region, Varanasi, to pay her salary for the aforesaid post wrongfully withheld from August 1984, and further not to interfere in the discharge of her duties as lecturer. 2. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in 1977 in the leave vacancy of D.P. Upadliyaya, which continued up to 30th June, 1980. Before 30th June, 1980, Smt. Tara Devi Singh who was also a lecturer in the aforesaid Department, proceeded on leave. As against this leave vacancy, tire petitioner was appointed from 1st July, 1980. She continued on the aforesaid post till (sic) October, 1981 when Smt. Tara Devi Singh rejoined. Shitla Prasad, who was another lecturer in the Geography Department, in the mean time, proceeded on leave, as a result of which on 21st April, 1982, the petitioner was appointed in his leave vacancy. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and it was made clear to her by means of the appointment letter itself that the same would be liable for termination at any time without notice. The petitioner's case was that she was permitted to continue by the Committee of Management, but unauthorised her payment of salary was not made after July 1984. The petitioner's case taken in the writ petition is that under Section 31 (3) (b) of the U.P. State Universities Act the petitioner became permanent and, consequently, she was entitled to be treated as such. 3. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner's counsel. 4. Before coming to the submission, it appears necessary to point out that the petitioner's claim is against the vacancy caused by Smt. Tara Devi Singh, who resigned from her post of lecturer in the Geography Department by letter dated 14ch December, 1983. The petitioner has alleged that since she was working as lecturer on the date of resignation of Smt. Tara Devi Singh, she was entitled to be made permanent. This has, however, been denied by the respondents as well as Rajiv Prakash Singh, respondent No. 5, who was subsequently appointed as lecturer in the Geography Department. The petitioner has alleged that since she was working as lecturer on the date of resignation of Smt. Tara Devi Singh, she was entitled to be made permanent. This has, however, been denied by the respondents as well as Rajiv Prakash Singh, respondent No. 5, who was subsequently appointed as lecturer in the Geography Department. The case of Rajiv Prakash Singh is that on Smt. Tara Devi Singh proceeding on leave from 29th October, 1982, who was later on appointed permanent lecturer in Geography in the Banaras Hindu University and who resigned on 14th December, 1983, he became entitled to be appointed on substantive basis under the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and U.P. Ordinance 14 of 1985. It has been denied that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. 5. We will first take up the case of the petitioner about Section 31 (3) (b) of the U.P. State Universities Act. The petitioner had been, admittedly, appointed on 21st April, 1982, as against the leave vacancy of Shitla Prasad Singh. She continued on the post on a purely temporary basis. On the date of taking leave by Smt. Tara Devi Singh on 29-10-1982, the petitioner was working as a lecturer against the leave vacancy of Shitla Prasad, the post vacated by Smt. Tara Devi Singh. As against this post, respondent 5 Rajiv Prakash Singh was appointed. It has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that even the initial appointment of the petitioner was invalid on account of implementation of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act. We are, however, not required to go into that question. With what we are concerned is whether the petitioner could get the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b). Section 31 (3) (b) would not apply to the case of the petitioner due to various reasons. One of them is that by Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act in so far as they were inconsistent were superseded. The scheme for appointment of teachers in the Degree College, which is governed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, was laid down by the Act itself. The scheme for appointment of teachers in the Degree College, which is governed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, was laid down by the Act itself. It was provided by Section 12 that every appointment as a lecturer in the Degree College after the date notified under sub-section (1) of Section 3 be made by the Management on the recommendation of the Commission. The date notified by sub-section (1) of Section 3 was 23rd October, 1982. 6. The petitioner was although appointed before the aforesaid date, but could not get the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b) inasmuch as her appointment was made as against the leave vacancy with a clear direction that the same would be liable to be terminated at any time without notice. For applying Section 31 (3) (b), it was necessary that the teacher must have been appointed on a temporary post after reference to the selection committee, which post was likely to last for more than six months. The post on which the petitioner was appointed was against a leave vacancy. Further more, the petitioner had not appeared before the selection committee. 7. What the petitioner's counsel urged was that in 1978, when petitioner's initial appointment was made, she had been selected by the committee and, by virtue of that selection, she was entitled to be given benefit of clause (b) of subsection (3) of Section 31. There had been, admittedly, three breaks after the selection of 1978. The selection spoken of in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 31 requires that it must have been made immediately before the appointment regarding which the benefit of permanency is being claimed. We have already noted that the petitioner was appointed as against the vacancy of Shitla Prasad Singh, and not as against the vacancy of Smt. Tara Devi Singh, who had ultimately resigned and left tire service. The appointment as against that post was made of respondent No. 5. The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of this clause as tire post vacated by Smt. Tara Devi Singh became available after the petitioner had joined. 8. We, consequently arc not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 31 (3) (b). 9. The appointment as against that post was made of respondent No. 5. The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of this clause as tire post vacated by Smt. Tara Devi Singh became available after the petitioner had joined. 8. We, consequently arc not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 31 (3) (b). 9. So far as the validity of appointment of respondent No. 5 is concerned, as the relief claimed in the writ petition is only for payment of salary, we need not go in that question in this case. 10. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.