( 1 ) 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus to the Mysore university to appoint her to any one of the posts available in the cadre of lecturer in Sociology. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a first rank holder in Master of Arts in Sociology. She was appointed as temporary lecturer under Section 518 of the Karnataka State universities Act (for short the Act) from 1976 till the end of the academic year of her appointment, but was continued from time to time, till 1984. The petitioner was teaching for post-graduate classes and thereafter for under-graduate classes. In the year 1982, the petitioner applied for the post of a lecturer in Sociology pursuant to an advertisement made by the University. However, she was not selected. Thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner applied for the said post but she was not selected in any of those interviews Ultimately, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18130 of 1985 challenging the selection of one ashok Kumar in perference to the petitioner. That appointment was initiajly quashed and in appeal that judgment was reversed and the appointment of the said Aihok Kumar was upheld by this court. Thus, the petitioner has remained unemployed. The petitioner states that on 24th October 1987 applications had been invited for number of posts including the post of lecturers in Sociology, namely, one post in under-graduate colleges and another post in Institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education, manama Gangotri at Mysore. But both these posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and therefore she could not apply for the same. She claims that she having been continued periodically for a continuous period of 250 days in each year and for about five years and having throughout her service, an unblemished record she should be appointed for one of the posts notified in the said advertisement. The petitioner also submits that the university should adopt the principle of 'last come first go' in regard to selection of candidates appointed as temporary lecturers. In this context, the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 1284 of 1973 in smt Mary Oomen v The Manager, m. G. M. High School and ors. (1987 ISVLR (L)102 ). In this context, the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 1284 of 1973 in smt Mary Oomen v The Manager, m. G. M. High School and ors. (1987 ISVLR (L)102 ). The petitioner also complains of mala fides against the Head of Postgraduate department of Sociology one smt. Parvathamma. ( 3 ) SECTION 49 of the Act provides for appointment of teachers including lecturers in the Uuiversity by the syndicate after selection is made by the Board of Appointments. Section 51b of the act empowers the Vice-Chancellor to maks temporary appointments for a period not more than six months, to posts of lecturers and such non-teaching staff as may be specified in the statutes provided such posts are either temporary or appointments to such posts cannot be made in accordance with Section 49 of the Act without delay. A reading of sections 49 and 51 B of the Act together would disclose that the latter section is enacted to meet a special and an urgent contingency in which a person cannot be appointed in the University against a teaching or a non-teaching post without delay after following the regular procedure, as provided in the statutes, by advertisement in a local newspaper or by notifying the vacancy to the local employment Exchange. This' limited requirement of publicity regarding the vacancy is prescribed as the temporary appointment is required to be made for a period not more than six months and until regular recruitment is made as provided under Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act provides for regular appointment of teaching staff to the university. Hence. Section 51b has limited application to meet an emergency situation or a particular necessity. Power under Section 51b of the Act cannot be exercised as an alternative to the regular recruitment or to supplant the same. ( 4 ) THE University being a creature of the statute can act only in confirmity with the provisions of the Act and there can be no appointment made contrary to sections 49 and 51b of the Act. Power under Section 51b of the Act cannot be exercised as an alternative to the regular recruitment or to supplant the same. ( 4 ) THE University being a creature of the statute can act only in confirmity with the provisions of the Act and there can be no appointment made contrary to sections 49 and 51b of the Act. If temporary appointments are made under section 51 B, regardless of the limitations imposed therein, and such appointees are continued in service for long periods of time without making any regular recruitment under Section 49 of the Act, such action is not only viola1 ive of the provisions of the Act but also the pledge of equality ensured under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though the statute permits appointments being made under Section 51b of the Act, after limited publicity, the continuation of such appointees after the period of six months is in violation of the provisions of Section 51b of the Act, and such continuation cannot confer any right or afford a ground on those appointees so as to defeat the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. ( 5 ) IN R. N. Nanjundappa v T. Thimmaiah ( AIR 1972 SC 1767 ) the supreme Court deprecated the tendency of appointing local candidates and thereafter regularising them on the ground of long temporary service. In this view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that she is entitled to contiune in service having completed 240 days of continuous service for about a period of five years. ( 6 ) IN Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association v mangalore University (ILR 1988 Kar. 2219) this Court considered the scope of Section 51 B of the Act with reference to appointments of non-teaching staff under Section 51 of the Act. The learned single Judge in that case, after elaborate consideration of the matter, expressed similar views on the scope and effect of section 51b of the Act with which we concert adept the reasoning on which that decision is based as part of our reasoning in this case. The learned single Judge in that case, after elaborate consideration of the matter, expressed similar views on the scope and effect of section 51b of the Act with which we concert adept the reasoning on which that decision is based as part of our reasoning in this case. ( 7 ) SO far as the contention relating to mala fides against the Head of the department is concerned, inasmuch as the petitioner has not challenged any specific appointment in this petition, we do not think it is necessary to go into this question. Further, it is also not necessary to examine this aspect of the matter inasmuch as Smt. Parvathamma, who was stated to be the Head of the department, is no longer there as such. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are a few vacancies still available to which the petitioner could be appointed. If it is so, it is appropriate for the University to fill such vacancies in accordance with law and to which the petitioner will certainly be entitled to apply for. Except this observation, no other relief could be given to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .