JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counter-affidavit and Rejoinder-Affidavit have been exchanged. Parties are agreed that the petition be disposed of finally at this stage. 2. A post of lecturer in Zoology Department in the Shri Saraswati Vidyalay Post Graduate College, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, fell vacant. The Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act) intimated the vacancy to the Commission. The Commission had received notifications of vacancies for the post of Lecturer in Zoology in many other Colleges. In October 1983 the Commission issued an advertisement being advertisement no. 2 for filling the posts of lecturer in Zoology in various colleges. It was a combined advertisement for 13 posts in 11 colleges. On 3st March, 1984 a notification was issued by the Commission under Regulation 6, sub-clause (4) of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1*83 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). By means of this notification the names of 13 candidates were notified as having been selected by the Commission. In this notification the name of Dr. Geeta Rani Bansal, the petitioner, was mentioned as one of the selected candidates. In this notification only the select list had been issued but it was not notified as to which candidate was selected for which post. On 13th August, 1985, the Commission issued a notification under Regulation 8 of the Regulations for the first time. By this notification the petitioner's name was notified for appointment as a lecturer in Zoology in the Saraswati Vidyalaya Post Graduate College, Hapur. After the committee of management had notified the vacancy of the post of lecturer in Zoology to the Commission for its recommendation and since no appointment was made by the Commission within time, respondent no. 4, Ashok Kumar Gupta, was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer on 22nd of October, 1982 with the approval of the Vice Chancellor and he continued to function as lecturer in the said institution. 4, Ashok Kumar Gupta, was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer on 22nd of October, 1982 with the approval of the Vice Chancellor and he continued to function as lecturer in the said institution. The committee of management regularised the services of Ashok Kumar Gupta in view of the provisions of section 31-B of the Commission Act which is quoted below : "31-B. Regulation of certain adhoc appointments i (1) Every teacher, other than a Principal, directly appointed on or before January 3, 1984, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982, or the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983, who* possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the concerned Statutes, shall with effect from the date of commencement of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1985, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided that such teacher has been continuously serving the college from the date of such adhoc appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment if :- (a) on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled, or selection for such post had already been made, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or (b) such teacher was related to any member of the management, or the Principal of the College concerned.". Section 31-B was inserted in the Commission Act with effect from 22nd June, 1985. Sub-clause (3) of Section 31-B provides that the benefit of Regularisation of ad hoc appointments shall not be available to any teacher, if on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled or selection for the said post had already been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Commission Act. 3. Sub-clause (3) of Section 31-B provides that the benefit of Regularisation of ad hoc appointments shall not be available to any teacher, if on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled or selection for the said post had already been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Commission Act. 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Ashok Ktimar Gupta's ad hoc appointment could not have been regularised by the Committee of Management as the selection had already been made for the post on which Ashok Kumar Gupta was appointed as ad-hoc teacher and the action of the management in regularising the ad hoc appointment of Ashok Kumar Gupta is manifestly erroneous. Learned counsel has emphasised on the fact that sub-clause (3) of section 31-B speaks of selection and does not speak of recommendation by the Commission. The submission is that once a selection has been made by a Commission for a post which had been advertised and the result of the selection has been declared before 22nd June, 1985, on the said post appointment of an ad hoc teacher could not be regularised. 4. Sri Anil Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that sub-clause (3) of section 31-B has to be interpreted to mean that it is only after a recommendation has been made by the Commission under the Commission Act for the vacant post that it can be said that the Commission has selected a candidate for the said post. The argument is that it is only after a notification is made under Regulation 8, then alone it can be said that the selection has been made for the post in question and that is the relevant date to determine whether section 31-B of the Act applies or not. We have consequently to determine as to which is the relevant date, whether the date of notification under Regulation 6 sub-clause (4) of the Regulations or the notification made under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. 5. Under Section 11 of the Commission Act powers and duties of the Commission have been enumerated. It has the power to select candidates and also to make recommendation to the Management regarding the appointment of selected candidates. These powers have been enumerated in clauses (c) and (d) of section 11 of the Act. 5. Under Section 11 of the Commission Act powers and duties of the Commission have been enumerated. It has the power to select candidates and also to make recommendation to the Management regarding the appointment of selected candidates. These powers have been enumerated in clauses (c) and (d) of section 11 of the Act. Section 13 relates to the recommedation made by the Commission. Sub-section (1) of section 13 provides that the Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancy, hold interview of the candidates and recommend the names of not more than three candidates for appointment to every post of a teacher, such names shall be arranged in order of preference. From section 13 it is clear that the Commission has to make recommendation for a vacancy, namely, for a particular post and for that post the Commission has been empowered to recommend not more than three candidates for appointment. Section 14 of the Act enjoins upon the management to appoint the teacher on the basis of the recommendation issued by the Commission under section 13 of the Act. The management has no other option but to make an appointment in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are to be invoked in case the appointment is not being made by the management in accordance with the recommendation made by the Commission. On a reading of the entire Commission Act, we are of opinion that the Commission constituted under the Commission Act has to make a recommendation to the management for a particular post and it is then only that the Management is obliged to make an appointment on the basis of the said recommendation to that post. The mere selection of a candidate without a recommendation for the said post does not oblige the committee of management to make an appointment of the selected candidate on the vacant post. 6. Similarly the provisions of the Regulations framed under the Act also provide for different stages of notifications so far as the Commission is concerned. By Regulation 6 sub-clause (4) the Commission notifies selected candidates but they are not selected candidates for a particular post. 6. Similarly the provisions of the Regulations framed under the Act also provide for different stages of notifications so far as the Commission is concerned. By Regulation 6 sub-clause (4) the Commission notifies selected candidates but they are not selected candidates for a particular post. Regulation 8 specifically provides that the Commission shall issue a notification of the names of the selected candidates for a particular vacant post and it is then only, as observed above, that the Management is obliged to make the appointment on the said vacant post. This notification has to be made under Regulation 8 and the recommendations are forwarded to the management for making necessary appointment on the post in the concerned college. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that it is the notification under Regulation 8 which is relevant to determine the date of applicability of section 31-B of the Commission Act. In the instant case it is not disputed that the notification under Regulation 8 was made on 13th of August, 1985 which is the notification made after the coming into force of section 31-B of the Act, namely, 22nd of June, 1985. We consequently hold that under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 31-B the selection for such post would mean the recommendation made by the Commission under Regulation 8 of the Regulations for a particular vacant post in the College concerned. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not substantiated. On the other hand the submission made by the respondent's counsel is correct. The regularisation of the service of Ashok Kumar Gupta cannot be said to be in any way invalid in law. 7. We do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.