JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The dispute in these petitions pertains to appointment to the post of Lecturer in Sociology on ad hoc basis in Shashi Bhushan Balika Vidyalaya Degree College, Lucknow. Writ Petition No. 9 of 1987 has been filed by the Managing Committee of the College whereas Writ Petition No. 451 of 1987 has been filed by Kumari Madhu Chauhan who had been appointed to the post in question by the Committee of Management. The Management has impugned the order, dated 24th December, 1986, Annexure-1, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow. University, Lucknow, opposite party No. 1, whereby he has directed the Management to honour the recommendations of the Selection Committee and appoint Smt. Raj Kumari Bajpai, opposite party No. 2, to the said post. The dispute has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. 2. Admittedly the post in question fell vacant on account of the death of the permanent incumbent of the post. The post was advertised and the candidates were interviewed on 15th November, 1986 by the Selection Committee comprising the Manager, the Principal of the College, nominee of the Principal and an expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. The Selection Committee, by majority, recommended Smt. Raj Kumari Bajpai for appointment to the post. According to the petitioner the Manager of the College who was Chairman of the Selection Committee, did not agree with the recommendation and put her note of dissent. The Management's claim is that Smt. Raj Kumari Bajpai did not fulfil the requisite prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post and as against her Kumari Madhu Chauhan was fit person to be appointed. It is claimed that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before Managing Committee on 16th November, 1986 and the Managing Committee also did not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is stated that the matter was again considered by the Managing Committee at its meeting held on 26th November, 1986 and it was resolved that Kumari Madhu Chauhan be appointed to the post on ad hoc basis. The Management claims that in pursuance of this resolution appointment order was issued to Kumari Madhu Chauhan on 4th December, 1986. It is stated that the matter was again considered by the Managing Committee at its meeting held on 26th November, 1986 and it was resolved that Kumari Madhu Chauhan be appointed to the post on ad hoc basis. The Management claims that in pursuance of this resolution appointment order was issued to Kumari Madhu Chauhan on 4th December, 1986. The management's claim is that this selection and appointment was made after the vacancy had been notified to the Higher Education Services Committee in the first week of September, 1986 and the Commission had failed to select and recommend any candidate. It appears that the Management itself sent the paper to the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, who thereafter passed the impugned order. 3. The Management's present claim is that the matter of ad hoc appointment is covered by Section 16 (1) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 under which the Vice-Chancellor has no role to play and the decision of the Management is final. On this basis it is asserted that the Vice-Chancellor's direction contained in the order, dated 24th December, 1986 is without jurisdiction and the appointment made by the Management in favour of Kumari Madhu Chauhan deserves to be maintained. 4. The petition has been opposed by Smt. Raj Kumari Bajpai, opposite party No. 2. No other opposite party has filed any counter-affidavit. 5. Writ Petition No. 451 of 1987 has been filed by Kumari Madhu Chauhan seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of her salary on the post of Lecturer in Sociology. Her claim is that she having been validly selected and appointed by the Committee of Management, the opposite parties are bound to make payment of her salary but they have withheld the same. The opposite parties in this petition are District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad and Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow. On behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3 notice was accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission notice was accepted by Sri S.C. Misra. They were allowed time to show cause why the writ petition may not be admitted. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the three opposite parties to oppose the petition. 6. Two facts have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed Writ Petition No. 9 of 1987. They were allowed time to show cause why the writ petition may not be admitted. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the three opposite parties to oppose the petition. 6. Two facts have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed Writ Petition No. 9 of 1987. The first is that the post fell vacant on account of the death of the permanent incumbent and the second is that the Management decided to make appointment on ad hoc basis under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, for short Act. Thereafter it is asserted that the Management adopted the procedure in Section 31 (3) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, and, therefore, the selection will have to conform to the provisions of the Universities Act and the University statutes. The opposite party No. 2 asserts that she had been validly selected by the Selection Committee and she alone be appointed in view of the order of the Vice-Chancellor and the appointment order issued in favour of Kumari Madhu Chauhan is illegal and invalid. 7. In view of the admitted position that the Management decided to make the appointment under Section 16 of the Act, we have to see whether the Vice-Chancellor of the Lucknow University any role to play in selecting candidates under the said provision. 8. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act states that with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification appoint in this behalf, there shall be established a Commission to be called the "Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission" which shall be a body corporate. The notification establishing the Commission was issued on 23rd October, 1982 which mentions the date of establishment of the Commission as 1st November, 1982. Chapter III of the Act deals with functions of the Commission. Section 12 (1) enjoins that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1978 or in Statute made thereunder, every appointment as a teacher of any college shall, after the date notified under sub-section (1) of Section 3, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. The term "college" is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act as an affiliated or associated college to which the privilege of affidavit or recognition, as such has been granted by a University. The term "college" is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act as an affiliated or associated college to which the privilege of affidavit or recognition, as such has been granted by a University. It is not disputed that Shashi Bhushan College is a college within the definition of Section 2 (c). Sub-section (2) of the section requires that for the purpose of making appointment of a teacher, the Management shall notify the vacancy of the Commission. Sub-section (5) states that every appointment made in contravention of the provisions of the section shall be void. Section 13 refers to the procedure to be followed by the Commission after notification of the vacancy. Under this provision the Commission is required to hold interview with or without examination of the candidates and recommend the names of not more than three candidates for appointment to every post of a teacher. Section 14 casts an obligation on the Management of the concerned institution to issue an appointment letter to the selected candidate. The procedure hereinbefore referred to relates to regular to appointment to a vacancy. Section 16 (1) relates to appointment to ad hoc teachers and reads as follows: "Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor." 9. In the above provision there is no mention of the Vice-Chancellor or any other authority mentioned in the U.P. State Universities Act or the Statutes framed thereunder. The power under Section 16 (1) has been given only to the Management. Section 30 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder. In view of this provision it appears that the Vice-Chancellor does not have any say in the matter of ad hoc appointment covered by Section 16 (1). Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, however, invokes the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor by reference to Section 31 (3) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act. In view of this provision it appears that the Vice-Chancellor does not have any say in the matter of ad hoc appointment covered by Section 16 (1). Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, however, invokes the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor by reference to Section 31 (3) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act. This provision reads as follows : "(3) (a) In the case of teacher of the University other than a Professor, the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty and the Head of the Department concerned and an expert nominated by the Chancellor in that behalf and in the case of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college, the Management in consultation with an expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf may make officiating appointment in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months without reference to the Selection Committee, but shall not fill any other vacancy or post likely to last for more than six months without such reference." This provision is applicable in a very limited situation, the same being grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months. As already pointed out the vacancy against which the impugned selection was held was not a leave vacancy but was a permanent vacancy which was caused by the death of the permanent incumbent. In the circumstances reliance placed upon Section 31 (3) (a) is misconceived. Our attention has not been drawn to any other provision which may justify interference by the Vice-Chancellor in an ad hoc appointment made under Section 16 (1) of the Act 10. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has invited our attention to the definition of the term "appointment" contained in Section 2 (a) of the Act Under this definition appointment in relation to a teacher does not include an appointment under sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973. The submission of the learned counsel is that in view of this definition appointments covered by Section 31 (3), of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act are expressly excluded from the purview of the Act. We have no doubt about this legal proposition but as pointed out earlier the present appointment is not covered by Section 31 (3) of the U.P., State Universities Act. 11. We have no doubt about this legal proposition but as pointed out earlier the present appointment is not covered by Section 31 (3) of the U.P., State Universities Act. 11. In view of the above the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor, dated 24th December, 1986, Annexure 1, is liable to be quashed. The Management's writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 12. We have held hereinabove that the Vice-Chancellor has no role to play in an ad hoc appointment under Section 16(1). In this view of the matter the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 24th December, 1986, as already stated, will have to be quashed. The question that now arises is whether the appointment of Kumari Madhu Chauhan falls within the ambit of Section 16 (1) in order to entitle her to claim salary for the post of Lecturer in Sociology. The Management does not dispute the validity of her appointment. The opposite parties in her writ petition have not filed any counter-affidavit to controvert her claim. However, one irregularity does appear in her appointment. In Management's writ petition it has been stated that the vacancy was notified to the Commission in the first week of September, 1986. It is then stated that the Committee of Management adopted resolution on 26th November, 1986 for appointing Kumari Madhu Chauhan to the post in question. In Paragraph 9 of the Management's writ petition is mentioned that Kumari Madhu Chauhan was appointed with effect from 4th December, 1986. Under Section 16(1) the Management acquires right to make ad hoc appointment only after the Commission fails to recommend names of suitable candidates within three months from the date of notification of vacancy. In the present case the Committee of Management adopted resolution in favour of Kumari Madhu Chauhan's appointment before the period of three months expired. The Management has not stated the exact date on which the vacancy was notified to the Commission and has merely stated that the notification made in the first week of September, 1986. The appointment letter was issued on 4th December, 1986. It, therefore, appears that the period of three months referred to in Section 16 (1) had not expired when Kumari Madhu Chauhan was appointed Lecturer in Sociology. The appointment letter was issued on 4th December, 1986. It, therefore, appears that the period of three months referred to in Section 16 (1) had not expired when Kumari Madhu Chauhan was appointed Lecturer in Sociology. However, on the ground we do not propose to deprive her of salary as it appears that till date no name has been recommended by the Commissioner. Her petition also, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 13. In view of the above both the writ petitions are allowed. Vice-Chancellor's order dated 24-12-1986, Annexure 1 to Writ Petition No. 9 of 1987, is hereby quashed and in Writ Petition No. 451 of 1987 a mandamus shall issue to the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, and the Regional Higher Education Officer Lucknow, commanding them to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner the post of Lecturer in Sociology, Shashi Bhushan Balika Vidyalaya Degree College, Lucknow, with effect from 4th December 1986. The arrears, if any, shall be paid within one month of the presentation of the certified copy of this judgment before opposite party No. 3 and the salary falling due hereafter shall be paid as and when the same falls due. Costs in both the cases shall be easy.