JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - The petitioner, who was appointed as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Law, Aligarh Muslim University, is aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chancellor communicated to him by the Assistant Registrar (Administration) through his letter dated 25-3-1985 terminating the services of the petitioner as well as the order dated 2-3-1987 passed by the Visitor of the University communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 12-10-1987 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Government of India dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of termination passed by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. These are the essential facts: In the year 1984 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling the posts of lecturers in the Department of Law. The petitioner was also amongst the various applicants for that post. Thereafter, the General Selection Committee constituted for the purpose held the selections and recommended the names of eight persons, two of them for permanent appointment. The General Selection Committee also prepared a panel of six names for filling temporary vacancies arising within a year--for which the panel was to remain in force. The petitioner was placed at No. 1 in this panel whereas Shaheeduddin Ahmad and Saleem Akhtar, respectively the respondent Nos. 6 and 5 herein were placed at serial Nos. 3 and 6. The Executive Council which met on 14-4-1984 considered and approved the recommendations of the General Selection Committee and passed a resolution the relevant portions of which are extracted below: "3 (b). Lecturers in Law, Department of law (Permanent and temporary vacancies) in scale of700-1600 plus allowances. Sanctioned the appointment of Mr. Mhlaque Ahmad and Mr. Mohd. Ishaque Qureshi as Lecturers in against the permanent posts on probation for one year and their pay be fixed according to the University rules. Further approved that the following be placed in order of merit on the panel which would remain valid for one year and from which vacancies whether permanent or temporary occurring within that period will be filled up subject to the condition that permanent vacancies as they occur would be according to the order of merit even if the persons have initially been drawn from the panel for temporary vacancies i.e. they will move from temporary vacancies to permanent vacancies: 1. Mr. Sajid Zaheer Amani 2. M. Anis Haider Zaidi 3. Mr. Shaheeduddin Ahmad 4. Mr. Barkatullah 5. Mr. Lihazur Rahman Khan 6. Mr. Sajid Zaheer Amani 2. M. Anis Haider Zaidi 3. Mr. Shaheeduddin Ahmad 4. Mr. Barkatullah 5. Mr. Lihazur Rahman Khan 6. Mr. Saleem Akhtar Further directed that such temporary Lecturers as are already working would not be affected as a result of the above panel. The earlier panel drawn up on the recommendation of a previous General Selection Committee will continue to be drawn upon, according to the order of merit, during the period of its validity. The candidates on the present panel would be appointed against the additional temporary vacancies as may become available during the course of one year. At its next meeting held on 30th and 31st May 1984 the Executive Council confirmed the minutes of the previous meeting with the following modifications: "Para 2 and 3 of sub-item No. 6 (regarding Lecturers in Law) be substituted by the following: "Further approved that the following be placed in order of merit on the panel which would remain valid for one year and temporary vacancies occurring within that period will be filled from the said panel: 1. Mr. Sajid Zaheer Amani 2. Mr. Anis Haider Zaidi 3. Mr. Shaheeduddin Ahmad 4. Mr. Barkatullah 5. Mr. Lihazur Rahman Khan 6. Mr. Saleem Akhtar. Further directed that such temporary Lecutrers as are already working would not be affected as a result of the above panel. The earlier panel drawn up on the recommendation of a previous General Selection Committee will continue to be drawn upon, according to the order of merit, during the period of its validity. Candidates on the present panel would be appointed against the additional temporary vacancies as may become available during the course of one year." These minutes shall have important bearing on the issues arising in the case and hence have been extracted in extenso. 3. It was in pursuance of these resolutions of the Executive Council that the Vice-Chancellor sanctioned the appointment of the petitioner as a temporary lecturer against the post vacated by Prof. M.R. Zafar. The appointment was further stated to last till further orders or till the post was filled on regular basis whichever was earlier. The appointment letter was communicated to the petitioner through the office memo dated 28-7-1984 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration). M.R. Zafar. The appointment was further stated to last till further orders or till the post was filled on regular basis whichever was earlier. The appointment letter was communicated to the petitioner through the office memo dated 28-7-1984 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration). Thereafter, the impugned office memorandum dated 25-3-1985 was issued stating that the Vice Chancellor had ordered that the petitioner, the junior most temporary lecturer in the Department of Law had ceased to be a lecturer w.e.f. 1-2-1985, the date on which Mr. Mustafa Ali a Reader in the Department had resumed duty on the expiry of his extraordinary leave. The petitioner represented against the termination order passed by the Vice- Chancellor before the Executive Council which however, approved/ratified the action of the Vice-Chancellor and rejected the representation. The petitioner there upon preferred a statutory appeal before the Visitor (the President of India) who while rejecting the appeal accepted the claim of the petitioner for the salary for the period from 1-2-1985 to 25-3-1985. 4. The petitioner assails the validity of these orders on various grounds which we shall presently elaborate. Before, however, we do that we may mention that the petitioner had challenged the validity of the order passed by the Vice-1 Chancellor by means of another petition (writ petition No. 4527 of 1985) but the same was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 36-B of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, which provides for an appeal to the Executive Council against the decision of any officer or authority of the University. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Executive Council which was dismissed on 19-4-1986. The resolution of the Executive Council dismissing the appeal stated that since the earlier panel prepared by the General Selection Committee had not exhaused itself, the petitioner who was in the subsequent panel could not be reinstated. The petitioner again filed a writ petition (No. 10954 of 1986) challenging validity of the order of termination dated 25-3-1985 as well as the order dated 19-4-1986 passed by the Executive Council dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that he had an alternative remedy available to him under Section 13(6) byway of an appeal to the Visitor of the University (the President of India). The petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that he had an alternative remedy available to him under Section 13(6) byway of an appeal to the Visitor of the University (the President of India). The Visitor having dismissed the petitioner's appeal, the petitioner again approached this Court by means of this petition which was presented in November 1987. 5. We may now take up the submissions of the petitioner who himself argued the petition before us. His first submission was that within one year of the drawing up of the panel in which the petitioner's name was included a permanent vacancy had admittedly arisen in the Department of Law which should have properly gone to the petitioner and not to Mohd. Shabbir, the respondent No. 4, in this petition who was in the previous panel drawn and approved by the Executive Council in May 1983, which panel had lapsed after one year whereas the panel in which the petitioner's name was included was still valid at the time of the appointment of Mohd. Shabbir. 6. The submission cannot be accepted. The General Selection Committee had recommended the names of five persons for permanent post and the recommendations had been accepted by the Selection Committee. These five were: 1. Mr. Tahir Iqbal 2. Mr. Shariful Hasan 3. Mr. Mohd. Moshir Alam 4. Mr. Hari Ram Gupta 5. Mohd. Shabbir. Out of these letters of appointment were issued to all vide Vice- Chancellor's office memorandum dated 2-5-1985 except Mohd. Shabbir. The reason for not appointing Mohd. Shabbir straightaway was that an enquiry was pending against him and consequently the Vice-Chancellor had put his case in abeyance to await the result of the enquiry. The enquiry, however, ended in favour of Mohd. Shabbir and thereupon in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the resolution of the Executive Council, the Vice-! Chancellor issued the letter dated 23.3.1985 appointing Mohd. Shabbir also as a lecturer. 7. We are clearly of the opinion that the right of Mohd. Shabbir to be appointed could not be lost merely because the letter of appointment was not issued within one year of the selection as was done in the case of the remaining four candidates selected along with him. His appointment as mentioned above was only put in abeyance to await the result of the enquiry instituted against him. Shabbir to be appointed could not be lost merely because the letter of appointment was not issued within one year of the selection as was done in the case of the remaining four candidates selected along with him. His appointment as mentioned above was only put in abeyance to await the result of the enquiry instituted against him. Upon the enquiry having ended in his favour, the obstacle in his way stood removed and he became entitled to be appointed. In these circumstances, the period between 2nd May 1983 (the date on which the letters of appointment were issued by the Vice? Chancellor to the remaining four candidates selected along with Mohd. Shabbir) and the date on which the enquiry terminated could not legitimately be taken into account in computing the period of one year set out as the life of the panel. To give any other interpretation would, in our opinion be plainly unjust and contrary to reason. The Executive Council having accepted the recommendation in favour of Mohd. Shabbir the issue of letter of appointment became a matter of mere formality. Consequently any delay occasioned on account of the pendency of the enquiry could not defeat the legitimate claim of Mohd. Shabbir. 8. The next submission of the petitioner was that both Slaim Akhtar and Shaheeduddin Ahmad respectively respondents No. 5 and 6 were placed below the petitioner in the panel drawn up for the year 1984-85. They could not hence be given a preference over the claim of the petitioner. 9. The contention ignores the vital fact that both these respondents were admittedly on the previous panel prepared in 1983 and were already working as temporary teachers along with three others. It was because of this fact that in the resolution of the Executive Council passed on 30th/31st May 1984, it was expressly provided that the panel prepared for 1984-85 would not affect the right of temporary lecturers already working and that: "the earlier panel drawn up on the recommendation of a previous General Selection Committee will continue to be drawn upon according to the order of merit during the period of its validity." 10. The claim of respondent Nos. The claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 arising by virtue of there being placed in the previous panel prepared in 1983 could not thus be defeated merely because in the panel prepared for 1984-85, their names happened to be placed below that of the petitioner. These two respondents were admittedly already working as temporary lecturers when the panel for 1984 came to be drawn. Their rights could not be affected by the subsequent panel. The impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner who was the junior most temporary lecturer hence could not be assailed on the second ground urged in support of the petition either. 11. That takes us to the third submission of the petitioner. Relying on Ordinances 13 and 14 of the University, the petitioner argued that three months' notice prior to the termination was mandatory and as he was not given any notice whatever before termination of his services, the impugned order is liable to be struck down as void and ineffectual in law. 12. We are unable to agree. Ordinances 12 and 13 read as follows: "12. The appointing authority may dismiss a teacher or dispense with his services on the following grounds: (a) Misconduct or insubordination; (b) Incompetence; (c) If the post he is holding is rentrenched and if his services are not longer required by the university; (d) If he declared medically unfit to perform his duties by an appropriate medical authority appointed by the appointing authority. 13. In case his services are not required under 12(c) or (d) the employee concerned shall be entitled to three months' notice, and in default of such notice the University shall pay to such person a sum of money equal to three months' salary. In this clause "salary" does not include any allowance." 13. These provisions can obviously have no application to the present case which is not one of termination of the services contemplated under clause (c) of Ordinance 12 which deals with retrenchment of post or if the services of the teacher are no longer required. The present is an instance of the appointment ceasing automatically as a consequence of non-availability of any post against which the petitioner's temporary appointment could be continued. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Shaheeduddin Ahmad was working on temporary basis against a temporary vacancy caused by Mustafa Ali Khan having proceeded on leave. The present is an instance of the appointment ceasing automatically as a consequence of non-availability of any post against which the petitioner's temporary appointment could be continued. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Shaheeduddin Ahmad was working on temporary basis against a temporary vacancy caused by Mustafa Ali Khan having proceeded on leave. Consequently, when Mustafa Ali Khanresumed his duties, Shaheeduddin Ahmad who had a preferential claim over the petitioner by virtue of having been placed on the previous panel had to be adjusted and as a consequence the petitioner who was the junior most lecturer in the Department had to go. To such a contingency, in our opinion, neither clauses (a) and (b) of Statute 40(3) of the Statutes framed under Aligarh Muslim University nor the Ordinances referred to above can obviously have any application. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner specifically stated that the appointment was purely temporary liable to be terminated at any time without notice. 14. That brings us to the next contention urged in support of the petition. The submission was that the resolution of the Executive Council dated 19.4.1986 turning down request of the petitioner to set aside the order of the Vice- Chancellor purporting to terminate his services also laid down that in future no post shall be advertised in any Department where a panel drawn by General Selection Committee has not yet exhausted itself. Consequently, it was urged,the University had no right to invite fresh applications through the advertisement dated 1-8-1987 to fill the post arising from the retirement of Prof. Rahman Ali Khan without first accommodating the petitioner. 15. The submission is based on a failure to appreciate the true import of the resolution dated 19-4-1986 passed by the Executive Council. The resolution dated 19-4-1986 reads as follows: "Considered the request of Mr. Sajid Zahir Amani, Ex-lecturer, Department of Law for restoration of his appointment as a lecturer and resolved that the earlier panel drawn up by the earlier General Selection Committee has to prevail over the panel drawn by the subsequent General Selection Committee and as the persons in the earlier panel were still to be absorbed and Mr. Amani's name being in the subsequent panel, he has no case. Amani's name being in the subsequent panel, he has no case. The Council further decided that in future no post be advertised in any Department where a panel drawn up by a General Selection Committee has not yet exhausted, i.e. as long as there is a first panel the question of creating a second panel or its activation should not arise." 16. Reading the resolution as a whole, it is apparent that the point which the Executive Council wanted to underscore was that it was wrong to have constituted a second panel (in which the petitioner's name was placed) when those on the earlier panel drawn in the year 1983 had yet to be accommodated. As mentioned above Salim Akhtar and Shaheeduddin Ahmad belonging to the earlier panel drawn in 1983 had still to be accommodated before the second panel was drawn. Further, the second panel in which the petitioner's name found place was drawn during the period of validity of the first panel drawn in 1983. It was this anomaly which the Executive Council stressed should be avoided in future. It was why the Executive Council observed, after rejecting the petitioner's appeal, so long as the first panel had not exhausted, the question of creating a second panel should not arise. It is, however, impossible to infer from this that the Executive Council wanted to keep alive that panels the life of which had already expired. The life of the panel in which the petitioner's name was included was specifically limited to one year. Consequently, the petitioner could derive no assistance from the resolution dated 19-4-1986. 17. It was, however, open to the petitioner to participate in the fresh selections for which applications were invited through the advertisement dated 1-8-1987. He can still do so in any other subsequent advertisement inviting applications and if he does so, we are sure the University would consider the claim of the petitioner on its merits keeping in view that in the selection held in 1984 the petitioner was placed on the top of the panel. We may further observe that the petitioner should not suffer merely because he has been litigating for his supposed rights for the last so many years. May be that the petitioner would have been better advised to apply afresh against the vacancies arising during the pendency of these litigations rather than waste his energies in litigation. We may further observe that the petitioner should not suffer merely because he has been litigating for his supposed rights for the last so many years. May be that the petitioner would have been better advised to apply afresh against the vacancies arising during the pendency of these litigations rather than waste his energies in litigation. That, however, should not prejudice the University against him. As observed above the petitioner's case should be viewed with sympathy and understanding and not hostility. These observations are, however, only an expression of hope rather than a direction. 18. Finally, relying on sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, the petitioner submitted that the Vice- Chancellor had no power to terminate his services as there was no such urgency as to warrant the Vice- Chancellor taking recourse to the emergency powers conferred upon him under the aforesaid provisions. The submission is devoid of any merit. On the material existing on the record, it is not possible to hold that the circumstances justifying action under subsection 3 of Section 19 were not present either when the petitioner's appointment was made or when his services were terminated. In any case, the Vice-Chancellor's action having been ratified by Executive Council, we would not be justified in striking down the impugned order in the exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs.