Judgment :- Malimath, CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P.No.10377 of 1989. The appellants are persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who were provisionally appointed as Teachers in The Kerala Ayurvedic Studies & Research Society, Kottakkal, by order Ext.P2 dated 21-1-1989 for a period of 180 days. By the subsequent order Ext.P3 dated 25-7-1989 the appellants were continued on a purely provisional basis liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice until further orders. These appointments came to be made having regard to the existence of regular vacancies of Tutors which were required to be filled up on a regular basis. The Managing Committee of the institution took a decision as per Ext. R1(d) to fill up these posts on a regular basis and pending such selection and recruitment to appoint these appellants on a provisional basis. In pursuance of the said decision, the posts were advertised as per Ext.P4 dated 30-3-1989 for being filled up on a regular basis from among the qualified hands after a proper selection. It is in this background that the appellants rushed to this Court in O.P.No.10377 of 1989 for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the appellants in the vacancies evidenced by Ext.P4 advertisement. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single judge without examining the question as to whether a writ petition against the first respondent, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is maintainable. We shall not be understood as expressing any opinion on this question as there has not been any debate on that question, as on merits it is found that there is no substance in this case. 2. It is not disputed that the appellants were not regularly appointed as Tutors in accordance with the relevant provisions regulating the filling up of regular vacancies. That the vacancies are permanent vacancies is not disputed. From the proceedings of the first respondent, Ext.R1(d) it is clear that the first respondent took the decision to fill up these vacancies by proper selection process and pending such regular recruitment decided to appoint the appellants on a purely provisional basis. Exts.P2 and P3 produced by the appellants fully substantiate these aspects. From the proceedings of the first respondent, Ext.R1(d) it is clear that the first respondent took the decision to fill up these vacancies by proper selection process and pending such regular recruitment decided to appoint the appellants on a purely provisional basis. Exts.P2 and P3 produced by the appellants fully substantiate these aspects. Though the appellants were appointed purely on a provisional basis, as is clear from Ext.R1(d) as a stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to these posts, the case of the appellants is that they have become entitled for regular appointment to these vacancies and that therefore we should injunct the first respondent not to fill up the vacancies in pursuance of Ext.P4. Reliance was placed in this behalf on S.57(6)(a) of the Calicut University Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads: "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder, - (a) a person appointed as teacher in a private college in a temporary vacancy on or after the 14th day of March, 1974 and continuing as such, shall be appointed as teacher in any permanent vacancy or any temporary vacancy of longer duration that may arise, after such appointment in the temporary vacancy, in the private college or, as the case may be, any of the private colleges under the management of the educational agency within the University area;" It is relevant to notice at this stage that sub-section (1) of S.57 provides that appointments to the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a private college shall be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment on the basis of merit, and sub-section (5) of S.57 provides that for making appointment under this section by direct recruitment the post shall be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. The object of the statutory provision contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of S.57 and other sub-sections thereof is to ensure that the posts of last grade of teachers in private colleges which are filled by direct recruitment should be on the basis of merit after due advertising and giving an opportunity to all eligible persons of offering themselves as candidates, so that the institution gets the most competent among the available and eligible candidates. The laudable object sought to be achieved by the statutory provision is to ensure that highest standard of education is maintained in the private colleges. But when we come to S.57(6), what we find is that it deals with special species of teachers appointed in temporary vacancies on or after 14th day of March, 1974 and continuing as such. It says that such persons shall be appointed as teachers in any permanent vacancy or temporary vacancies of longer duration that may arise after such appointment in the temporary vacancy in that college. In other words, it deals with a situation of a person who is first appointed in temporary vacancy on or after 14-3-1974 and continuing as such, when an occasion arises to make another appointment after his appointment in the temporary vacancy. The mandate of the statutory provision is that such a person shall be appointed in the subsequent vacancy whether it is a permanent vacancy or a temporary vacancy of longer duration, but it does not speak of the nature of the appointment to be made. It only speaks of the nature of the vacancy in which a person earlier appointed in a temporary vacancy is required to be accommodated. It does not say that the person who is entitled to claim the benefit of clause (a) of sub-section (6) of S.57 is entitled to be appointed on a regular basis. Regular appointment to the lowest grade of teachers, which includes Tutors, is required to be made by direct recruitment on the basis of merit after due advertisement, as provided in sub-sections (1) and (5) of S.57 of the Act and relevant provisions in the University Statutes. When an occasion arises to fill up the vacancy by way of stop gap arrangement no such procedure is required to be followed. Sub-section (6) of S.57 says that a person appointed as teacher in a temporary vacancy on or after 14-3-1974 and continuing as such shall be appointed as teacher in any permanent vacancy or temporary vacancy of longer duration. In other words, some type of preference is given to those who were appointed in private colleges in temporary vacancies when a subsequent occasion arises to make appointment in a permanent vacancy or temporary vacancy of longer duration but by way of stop gap arrangement. In other words, some type of preference is given to those who were appointed in private colleges in temporary vacancies when a subsequent occasion arises to make appointment in a permanent vacancy or temporary vacancy of longer duration but by way of stop gap arrangement. In otherwords, sub-section 6(a) of S.57 does not prescribe another mode of direct recruitment to the post in the lowest grade of teachers in private colleges. It only provides for temporary or provisional appointment being made whenever a permanent vacancy or temporary vacancy of longer duration arises. If teachers who were appointed in temporary vacancies on or after 14-3-1974 and continuing as such are available, they should be appointed in such vacancies. If as contended by Sri. Dandapani, the learned counsel for the appellants, clause (a) of sub-section (6) of S.57 is interpreted as requiring a person appointed in a temporary vacancy on or after 14-3-1974 and continuing as such being appointed regularly, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (5) of S.57 would become otiose. Sub-section (6) of S.57 cannot be construed in such a manner as to defeat the primary object of securing the best qualified teachers to teach the students in private colleges. Teachers appointed in temporary vacancies who are dealt with under sub-section (6) of S.57 do not go through the process of selection after advertisement as contemplated by sub-sections (1) and (5) of S.57 of the Act. Such appointments are tolerated by the statute only as a stop gap arrangement for a short period. Vacancies can be filled upon regular basis only by following the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (5) of S.57 of the Act, and provisional or temporary appointments can be made under S.57(6) of the Act. Otherwise, it would lead to an absurd situation of the persons appointed on a provisional basis pending regular recruitment being required to be appointed immediately thereafter on a regular basis, thus rendering impossible the proposed regular recruitment. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the appellants who were appointed provisionally pending regular recruitment cannot contend that appointments cannot be made in pursuance of Ext.P4. 3. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the appellants who were appointed provisionally pending regular recruitment cannot contend that appointments cannot be made in pursuance of Ext.P4. 3. As we have come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to seek relief on the interpretation sought by them on clause (a) of S.57(6) of the Act, we have considered it unnecessary to examine as to whether the writ petition is maintainable as against the first respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also as to whether it is a private college. Before concluding we may say that some of the appellants who did not appear for interview did so at their own risk and nothing can be done in their case at this stage as some of the candidates as submitted by Sri. Warriyar who were selected by the process of selection as per Ext.P4 have already been appointed. For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.