JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as the University) took a decision that the services of the petitioner as a temporary Assistant Teacher in the Central Hindu Boys School (hereinafter referred to as the School) will cease with effect from 31st Oct, 1986. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University through a communication dated Sept. 20/23, 1986. The Vice-Chancellor of the University on 23rd Aug., 1987, rejected the representation of the petitioner. The said decision of the University and the order of the Vice- Chancellor aforementioned are being impugned in the present petition A further prayer has been made that the respondents may be commended to treat the petitioner as in service as a n Assistant Teacher in Physics. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The petition is ripe for hearing. It has not been normally admitted. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties it is being disposed of finally. 3. The material facts which emerge from the exchange of the affidavits are these. Applications were invited for appointment of temporary Assistant Teachers in different subjects. The advertisement provided that the appointment would be made for a period of six months in the first instance and may be extended for a period up to eleven months, if so needed or till regular appointments were made or till the end of the Session 1980-81, whichever is earlier. On 4th Sept., 1980, Selection Committee recommended the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Post Graduate Scale for a period of six months in the first instance. On 3rd Oct., 1980, the Selection Committee reiterated that the petitioner should be appointed as a temporary Assistant Teacher in Physics in the Post-Graduate Scale. It also recommended the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the T. G. Scale as it felt that the petitioner did not fulfil the essential qualifications for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Post- Graduate Scale. The Central Hindu School Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 4th Oct., 1980, considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and resolved that a panel may be approved for temporary appointment as teacher in Physics in the T. G. Scale for future vacancies. The petitioner's name found place amongst the three candidates put on the panel. The Central Hindu School Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 4th Oct., 1980, considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and resolved that a panel may be approved for temporary appointment as teacher in Physics in the T. G. Scale for future vacancies. The petitioner's name found place amongst the three candidates put on the panel. On 7th Oct., 1980, a letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner stating therein that it has been decided to appoint him on a temporary basis. The tenure of the appointment was a period of six months from the date of joining in the first instance or till regular appointment was made or till the return of the permanent incumbent or till further orders, if any, whichever event occurred earlier. The petitioner joined on 9th Oct., 1980. On 4th February, 1982, the Board made a number of appointments. Some teachers were appointed on temporary basis, some were placed in the panel for temporary appointment as Assistant Teachers, some were appointed as temporary Assistant Teachers against future vacancies, some were appointed on probation for two years, some were placed on the panel for temporary appointment as Assistant Teachers in Physics for future appointments in the year 1982-83. So far as the appointments of the Assistant Teachers in Physics in the T. G. Scale were concerned, one Sri Singh was appointed on probation for two years, the petitioner was appointed temporarily and one Sri Shyam Prakash Verma was placed in the panel for temporary appointment during the year 1982-83 against future vacancy on 18th February, 1985, the Board superseded its resolution dated 4th February, 1982 and resolved that those Assistant Teachers, who had been appointed on temporary basis bur there was a likelihood of their services continuing, were put on probation, that the teachers appointed on temporary post will have to take their chance again if the posts fell permanently vacant or for a period of 24 months in case the meeting of the Selector Committee was not convened, that if candidate appeared before the Selection Committee in response to and as against the advertised post and was not selected, he would lose his claim for continuing for 24 months The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and took his chance on a number of occasions, but every time he was found unsuitable. His appointment was extender from time to time. His appointment was extender from time to time. The last extension was made by a communication dated 20th Aug. 1986 of the Assistant Registrar of the University for a period of six months with effect from 3rd Aug, 1986 (Annexure II to the writ petition). His appointment, therefore came to an end on 2nd Feb., 1987. There after no further extension was allowed. The service of the petitioner were not confirmed at an, stage. Three posts of Assistant Teachers Physics, one permanent, one temporary like 1 to be made permanent and the thin temporary in a leave vacancy in the T.G Grade were advertised in Sept., 1981. The Selection Committee on 31st Jan, 1982 recommended the petitioner against the temporary post. In 1983-84 against one P.G Post the petitioner appeared for interview before the Selection Committee on 7th Jan 1985. He was not found fit. He was placed of the panel of temporary Assistant Teacher for T.G./P. G. Scale for the year 1985-86. A permanent post of an Assistant Teacher in physics in T. G. Grade fell vacant with effect (SIC) From 4th Feb, 1985 due to appointment of one Sri U. N. Singh in the P. G. Scale. As an interim measure, the petitioner was adjusted against the said T. G. Post with effect from 4th Feb., 1985. The post was advertised in Aug., year 1986. The Selection Committee met on 29th Aug., 1986. The petitioner appeared or interview and took his chance. On 30th Aug., 1986, the Board accepted the :commendation of the Selection Committee Ind resolved : "The post of Assistant Teacher in Physics (TG) CH Boys School be re-advertised as no the was found suitable." The matter was considered by the Vice chancellor, Vice-Chairman and the Secretary If the Board on 17th Sept, 1986. The Vice chancellor passed the following order : "The two teachers Sri S.C. Pandey and shri Sheshdhar Tripathi, T. G. Teacher not recommended by the Selection Committee or substantive appointment be given one month's notice that their services are no longer enquired, the cut-off date may be 31-10-1986." This order was communicated to the petitioners on Sept. 20/23, 1986. 4. On the basis of the proceedings of the beard held on 4th Feb 1982, it is urged that he petitioner having been appointed as a teacher on temporary basis he was not required to face any further interview before toy Selection Committee. 20/23, 1986. 4. On the basis of the proceedings of the beard held on 4th Feb 1982, it is urged that he petitioner having been appointed as a teacher on temporary basis he was not required to face any further interview before toy Selection Committee. His appointment should have been treated to be on substantive psis and he should have been absorbed if the when a clear and permanent vacancy acme into existence This contention cannot be accepted for more than one reason. First, at already indicated and as emphasised in the bunter affidavit filed on behalf of the university, the said resolution of the Board was superseded by it (the Board) on 18th feb. 1983, and on that date the Board clearly solved that every candidate who had been appointed on temporary basis had to appear therefore the Selection Committee for being absorbed on permanent basis. Secondly, and ore importantly, the petitioner applied in insurance of the advertisement issued and also appeared before the Selection Committee on numerous occasions. He, therefore, gave up his case, if any, under the resolution of the Board dated 4th Feb. 1982. He cannot now be permitted to wriggle out and contend that he should be treated as having been absorbed on permanent basis even though he failed to qualify before the Selection Committee. Lastly, the petitioner voluntarily accepted temporary appointments for a period of six months from time to time without any demur. His last appointment, as already indicated, came to an automatic end on the expiry of a period of six months from 3rd August, 1986, viz. 2nd Feb. 1987. No formal order terminating his services was necessary as the communication sent to the petitioner on 20th Aug. 1986, by the Assistant Registrar (Annexure II) was self explanatory and gave sufficient notice to him (the petitioner) that he would cease to be an Assistant Teacher of the School on 2nd Feb. 1987. 5. Learned counsel next contended that the proceedings of the Board held on 17th Sept. 1986, were invalid as the quorum was wanting, Reliance is placed upon Chapter VI Volume I of the Calendar of the University (page 236). In paragraph 3 it is provided that seven members of the Board shall form the quorum out of which the presence of the following members is essential : (i) Members under Cls. 1986, were invalid as the quorum was wanting, Reliance is placed upon Chapter VI Volume I of the Calendar of the University (page 236). In paragraph 3 it is provided that seven members of the Board shall form the quorum out of which the presence of the following members is essential : (i) Members under Cls. (a) and 0, that is, Vice-Chancellors; and the Secretary of the Board : (ii) One member out of these under cls.(c), (d) and (k). In cl. (c) Registrar is mentioned, in Clause(d) Finance Officer is mentioned and in Cl. (k) Principal Central School B.H.U. Campus is mentioned. 6. In pars 14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that on the relevant date the Vice- Chancellor, the Vice Chairman, the Secretary of the Board and the Registrar of the University attended the meeting of the Board It is thus clear that neither the Finance Officer nor the principal were present in the meeting It is manifest that neither 7 members of the Board attended the meeting nor the Finance Officer and the Principal, whose presence was essential, attended the meeting. As already indicated pars 5 lays down two conditions. The first is that a minimum number of seven members shall. constitute the quorum and the second is that out of these seven the presence of certain members is essential We have already indicated that even the members, whose presence was essential, were not present. Assuming it was not mandatory for seven members to be present, then too the proceedings oft he Board were invalid as the two essential members did not attend the meeting, Therefore, on a plain reading of Para 3 referred to above the conclusion is inevitable that the Board was not validly constituted on the relevant date. 7. Section 16-C of the Banaras Hindu University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which provides that no act or proceedings of any authority or Board or Committee of the University shall be invalid merely by reason of any irregularity in its procedure not affecting the merits of the case has been pressed into service on behalf of the University. The premise is that the requirement of a quorum is a platter relating to a procedure. The premise is that the requirement of a quorum is a platter relating to a procedure. This argument overlooks the act that apart from the presence of a minimum number of members the presence certain categories of members amongst the seven members is imperative. Their absence, in any view of the matter, will affect the merits of the decision taken by the Board on the relevant date as to whether the petitioner should or should not have been retained in service. This conclusion flows from the provisions of S. 16-C themselves. 8. The larger question is whether the contents of pare 3 of the Calender referred to above lay down the procedure to be followed by the Board? For answering this question some provisions of the Act and the Statutes of the University may be considered. Section 2(b) definesa "College" to mean"a collegeor teaching institution (other than a secondary, primary or infant school or pathshala) maintained by or admitted to the privileges of the University." "Teachef is defined in S. 2(i) to mean, amongst others a salaried professor, reader, lecturer or tutor who impartes instructions in a college maintained by the University. Section 15 provides that the Central Hindu College, Banaras, shall, from such date as the Central Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, be deemed to be a College maintained by the University. Section 17 deals with the Statutes. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 empowers the Executive Council to make new or additional Statutes or to repeal or amend the existing Statutes from time to time Section 18 talks of Ordinances. Amongst others, it lays down that the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated therein, one of the matters being the meetings of any Board or Committee that may be set up under the Act or the Statutes, the quorum of such meetings and the procedure to be followed in the conduct of their business. Statutes 10, 14, 17 and 21 deal with the composition and the quorum of the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council and the Finance Committee respectively. In all these Statutes a quorum has been fixed and the language employed is : so many members"shall form the quorum". Statutes 10, 14, 17 and 21 deal with the composition and the quorum of the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council and the Finance Committee respectively. In all these Statutes a quorum has been fixed and the language employed is : so many members"shall form the quorum". Statute 41 provides that the Executive Council shall make provision for the maintenance of the Central Hindu School and other Schools which have been established in accordance with the Act, the Statutes and the Regulations. Sub-clause(2) provides that the management of such schools shall be in accordance with the Ordinances made in this behalf. Para 3 aforementioned forms part of the provision purported to have been made under cl (2) of statute 41. We have already referred to the Ordinance making power in Section 18 and i particular to sub-para (11). It will be remembered that in sub-Para(11) the language used is-the quorum at such meetings and the procedure to be followed in the conduct their business". The Legislature itself drew distinction between the quorum and the procedure Had the intention been otherwise it would not have mandated that the Ordinances shall provide for the quorum at the meetings and the procedure to be followed therein. Its purpose would have been achieved by merely using the expression"procedure'. It has, therefore, designedly drawn a distinction between quorum and procedure. It has made its intent manifest that quorum is not a matter of procedure. This intendment is fortified and corroborated by the fact that the Statute making authority took care to provide for a quorum specifically for each body, namely, the executive Council etc. In Statute 41(2), the scheme is not departed from, for the management of the Schools has to he in accordance with the Ordinances made. From a conspectus of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes in relation to the University it is more than clear that quorum has not been considered to be a part of procedure. 9. In lshwar Chandra v. Satya Narain Sinha, AIR 1972 SC 1812 : 1972 Lab IC 909 a Committee had been constituted consisting of three members for submitting a penal of names for appointment of Vice Chancellor. Due notice of the meeting had been given to all the three members. However, only two members attended and recommended a panel. A question arose as to whether the proceedings of the meeting were valid. Due notice of the meeting had been given to all the three members. However, only two members attended and recommended a panel. A question arose as to whether the proceedings of the meeting were valid. It was held that where there is no Rule or Regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute a valid meeting and the matters considered thereat cannot be considered to be invalid Thus, it is clear that but for the provision of a quorum in para 3, the presence of the majority of the members of the Board was necessary on the relevant date for transacting a valid business. 10. In the case of Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Vijay Singh Lamba, AIR 1976 SC 1441 it was observed that "quorum" denotes the minimum number of members of any body of persons whose presence is necessary in order to enable that body to transact its business validly so that its acts may be lawful 11. RA. Masodkar in his Law of Meetings in India in Chapter II says : "The quorum is minimum that is required to constitute any meeting and in want of quorum, in law, there is no meeting." Thus, quorum is the foundation for the validity of any decision taken or business transacted at a meeting. This is so as there cannot be a valid meeting if there is no quorum. Therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that in the eye of law no decision was taken by the Board adverse to the petitioner on 20-9-1986. Section 16-C of the Act cannot be pressed into service by the University to ward off the attack on the validity of the proceedings of the Board held on 20th Sept. 1986. 12. In Dr. N.D. Tahiliani v. Dr. R.R. Misra, 1987 U.P. LBEC 361 Section 66 of the U.P. State Universities Act, which is in pari materia with, S. 16 of the Act, came up for consideration. In that case a provision, viz., S.34 conferred that Regulation making power, amongst others, with regard to laying down the procedure to be absorbed at the meetings and the number of members required to form a quorum. In that case a provision, viz., S.34 conferred that Regulation making power, amongst others, with regard to laying down the procedure to be absorbed at the meetings and the number of members required to form a quorum. This Court held that since the question of quorum was a matter of procedure and did not affect the merits of the case, the decision of the body concerned was protected by Section 66, even though the quorum was not complete. It will be immediately seen that the language used by the Legislature in Section 34 in Dr. Tahiliani's case was different than the one used by the Legislature in S. 18(11) of the Act. That apart, as already indicated, in Section 34 of the requirement of the presence of a certain class of members was not essential. The University, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the provisions of S. 16-C. Furthermore, the decision of this Court in Dr. Tahiliani s case is not apposite. 13. The next submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that three teachers, namely, Sri Udai Shankar Singh Post Graduate teacher in History, Sri J. S. P. Misra Post Graduate teacher in Sanskrit and Sri R. P. S. Yadav Post Graduate teacher in Economics were similarly situated as the petitioner and were appointed temporarily; but were made permanent in the year 1982-83 and, therefore, the the respondents acted arbitrarily and discriminately in not giving the same treatment to the petitioner. In the counter- affidavit the averments are these. Initially the three teachers were appointed as temporary Assistant Teachers in Post Graduate Scale but later on they were treated as on probation for one year. This decision was taken by the Board in its meeting held on 18th February, 1988 and 4th Oct. 1988. The details of the resolution passed by the Board are given in para 9 of the counter-affidavit. We are satisfied that the three teachers stood on a footing entirely different from that of the petitioner. 14. In para 14 of the petition an allegation has been made that five persons, who were junior to the petitioner, have been retained in service. In the counter-affidavit it is averred that these teachers had not been appointed in physics but in different subjects. It is also averred that later on these teachers have been confirmed. 14. In para 14 of the petition an allegation has been made that five persons, who were junior to the petitioner, have been retained in service. In the counter-affidavit it is averred that these teachers had not been appointed in physics but in different subjects. It is also averred that later on these teachers have been confirmed. It is thus clear that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance on account of the absorption of some teachers, who must have been duly selected by the Selection Committee. 15. The last submission is that the Vice Chancellor while disposing of the representation oft he petitioner failed to carry out that direction of this Court given on 5th November, 1986 in an earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner to the effect that he (the Vice Chancellor) shall go into the validity of the proceedings of the Board held on 20th Sept. 1986. It is true that the Vice Chancellor did not record any finding on the validity of the proceedings of the said date. He should have done it. His failure to do so indicates that either he was not careful enough to go through the direction of this Court or he has scant respect for this Court. We believe, in the instant case, the former condition prevailed. We have no doubt that in future the Vice Chancellor will be careful while dealing with the order or directions of this Court. We are also sure that the Vice Chancellor realises the consequences of wilful disobedience of directions or orders of this Court. However, on the merits we have already recorded our opinion that the proceedings of 20th September, 1986. in so far as it relates to the petitioner, were invalid. 16. The question still remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief. He has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He failed to qualify before the Selection Committee. He was offered and he accepted short term appointments from time to time. The last appointment being for a period of 6 months from 3rd Aug. 1986. He did not, at any stage, claim any right of being absorbed permanently without being approved by the Selection Committee. His appointment came to an automatic end on 2nd Feb. 1987. He had no legal right left to continue after 2nd Feb. 1987. The last appointment being for a period of 6 months from 3rd Aug. 1986. He did not, at any stage, claim any right of being absorbed permanently without being approved by the Selection Committee. His appointment came to an automatic end on 2nd Feb. 1987. He had no legal right left to continue after 2nd Feb. 1987. His appointment died a natural death on 2nd Feb. 1987, therefore, nothing turned upon the decision of the Board of 20th Sept. 1986, wherein the view taken was that his services were no longer required and they should be done away with. In the counter-affidavit it is alleged and this averment has not been denied that the petitioner received his salary etc. till 23rd Aug. 1987. This was so on account of the interim order passed by this Court dated 5th Nov. 1986, in the writ petition which was ultimately dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, cannot get any relief from us. 17. The petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.