JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. 1. The two writ petitions which are being decided by this judgment involve common question of law and facts. Writ Petition No. 1889S of 1989 (Anil Kumar Pandey v. Vice-Chancellor) has been filed on the following facts 2. Petitioner says that a post of lecturer in Organic chemistry had fallen vacant in Hindu College, Moradabad which is a duly recognised institution and is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act. The committee of management of the College wanted to fill up the vacancy on ad-hoc basis under section 16 of the Commission Act after obtaining permission from the director of Higher Education. The post was duly advertised as required under the law. The petitioner along with 12 candidates applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement notice. After interviewing the candidates, the petitioner was selected as the best candidate and was placed at serial no. 1 in the list of the selected candidates, by the selection committee. Copy of the recommendation of the selection committee is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The recommendation of the selection committee was approved by the Committee of Management by its resolution dated 28-12-188. Copy of the said resolution is annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Principal of the College appears to have sent the papers with regard to the selection of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor which is reflected by a copy of the letter contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner has said that he has joined the post and started functioning. The Vice Chancellor did not grant approval but informed verbally to the petitioner that his appointment was cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the Chancellor. The petitioner also made a representation to the principal and Registrar of the University for issuing appointment order in his favour, copy of the request letters are contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ Petition. The Vice Chancellor's disapproval has resulted in non payment of salary to the petitioner. It is stated that University authority was interested in the appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain who was placed in the selection list at serial no. 2, below the petitioner. The order of the Vice Chancellor, withholding the approval of the petitioner's appointment is challenged as being without jurisdiction and bad in law. It is stated that University authority was interested in the appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain who was placed in the selection list at serial no. 2, below the petitioner. The order of the Vice Chancellor, withholding the approval of the petitioner's appointment is challenged as being without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Vice Chancellor has no say in the matter, therefore his disapproval would not effect the petitioner's right to continue in service and get salary. The petitioner's salary has been illegally withheld under the invalid and unjust order which is totally arbitrary. The petitioner seeks quashment of Vice Chancellor's order whereby he has not approved his appointment which was communicated to the petitioner on 17-3-1989. The petitioner seeks mandamus for payment of salary. The reply has been filed by the respondents through its assistant Irshad Husain. It is stated that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification under the Statute for being selected as lecturer. He have not secured 50 percent marks in Intermediate and 55 percent marks in average. A letter was addressed to the Principal on 23-1-1989 in reply to his letter dated 2-1-1989. Copy of that letter is placed as Annexure-1 to the counter. It is stated that the Vice Chancellor did not approve the appointment of the petitioner because the petitioner has no qualification for being appointed as lecturer. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a representation to the Chancellor, copy where of is Annexure-2 to the counter. In pursuance of the said representation, notice has been issued to the Vice Chancellor and a reply also is filed by the Vice Chancellor. Copy of the notice is Annexure-3 to the counter. A supplementary representation has also been filed by the petitioner on 16-6-1989. Copy of Chancellor's letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor is Annexure-4 to the counter and copy of the reply filed by the Vice Chancellor to the supplementary representation is Annexure-5 to the counter. On 17-1-1990 another supplementry representation was received by the University and the same was forwarded to the Vice Chancellor vide Annexure-6. It is contended that approval for appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain was sought from the Vice Chancellor by a letter, copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the counter. The Vice Chancellor granted approval which is contained in Annexure-8 to the counter. It is contended that approval for appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain was sought from the Vice Chancellor by a letter, copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the counter. The Vice Chancellor granted approval which is contained in Annexure-8 to the counter. The approval of Sri Raj Kumar Jain was only for three months after which no approval was granted. A letter of the University to the Principal is contained in Annexure-9 to the counter. 3. It is asserted that power of the Vice Chancellor to grant* approval in the matter of adhoc appointment is not taken away by any law. The management is said to have no power to make appointment on adhoc basis of a person who is not qualified under the Statute for being appointed as lecturer. The selection committee did not relax the qualification of the petitioner. In this regard the communication dated 4-3-1989 is contained in Annexure-10 to the counter. The Principal also wrote a letter to the University for approval to the candidature of Sri Raj Kumar Jain and sent the proceeding of the management to the University. The letters of the Principal to the University are contained in Annexures-11 and 12 to the counter. The other Annexures are letters exchanged between the Principal and University after the filing of this writ petition. 4. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner submitted that he obtained a doctrate degree, therefore, it is not necessary for him to have a good academic record. The selection committee after considering the case of the petitioner found him suitable for the post, therefore, his name was recommended. The managing committee accepted the recommendation and now it cannot turn down the recommendation and say that the selection made by the selection committee is bad. The petitioner says that he joined the duties on 2-1-1989 in pursuance of the direction given by the committee of management. It is asserted that he was continuously functioning on the post in question and has produced Annexures R.A. 2, 3 and 4, photo state copies of peon book and the attendance register. It is stated that adhoc appointment was to be made under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act and not under the State Universities Act or the Statute of the Rohilkhand University. It is stated that adhoc appointment was to be made under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act and not under the State Universities Act or the Statute of the Rohilkhand University. The petitioner stated that he had worked in the institution in question for more than three years, therefore, he is entitled to draw the salary. The petitioner states that the University was interested in the appointment of Sfi Raj Kumar Jain, therefore, he was appointed. However, his appointment was to continue only till June, 1989. The Vice Chancellor's order impugned in this writ petitioner is said to be without juisdiction. The petitioner was not given any notice about the disapproval of his appointment by the Vice Chancellor. A supplementry counter affidavit is filed by the University in reply to the rejoinder-affidavit. The petitioner's assertion that because he was holding a Ph.D. degree, therefore, he was not required to have good academic record, is denied. The managing committee is said to have recommended the name of the petitioner without examining the Statute of the Universities. It is denied that the petitioner was given any appointment letter. About Annexures RA 2, 3 and 4 it is stated that they are forged. According to the principal's certificate, the petitioner was never given time table in chemistry department. University having any interest in the appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain is denied. Vice Chancellor's authority to accord approval or refuse approval is asserted. 5. Two more affidavits were filed by the petitioner in which he reiterated the same pleas which he has stated in the writ petition and the rejoinder- affidavit. 6. Raj Kumar Jain has filed writ petition no. 2663 of 1990 with a prayer that his appointment as adhoc lecturer should have been regularised and the Vice Chancellor's order to accord approval to his appointment up to June, 1989 was bad, therefore, the same be quashed. A writ of mandamus is sought against the Vice Chancellor directing him to make appointment of the petitioner after three months of the joining to the post and respondents be directed not to remove him from service as lecturer and commanding them to make the payment of salary to the petitioner. He based his writ petition on the following, among other grounds. He based his writ petition on the following, among other grounds. A post of lecturer in Organic Chemistry was to be filed up as per in advertisement notice against a clear vacancy and not for three months. The petitioner was appointed as adhoc lecturer in the college on 27-2-1989 as he was selected by the selection committee. The petitioner joined the post on that very day. The approval was however, granted by the Vice Chancellor only for three months. The principal, thereafter recommended the continuance of the petitioner on the post by his letter dated 21-10-1989. Since the Commission had failed to make appointment on permanent basis, therefore, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis. He could not be appointed for three months. The Vice Chancellor has not extended the terms of the petitioner's appointment. Therefore, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have shown their inability to continue the petitioner in service. The petitioner submitted that he has been taking classes regularity even after expiry of the term of his appointment but he was not been paid salary. 7. A reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondents through one Irshad Husain, Assistant. It is stated that two posts of lecturer in Chemistry department had fallen vacant. The two posts related to one each in Inorganic Chemistry and Organic Chemistry post of lecturer in Organic Chemistry was advertised.! The selection committee recommended the name of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, who was shown as serial no. 1 (Writ Petition No. 18895 of 1989). The petitioner was placed at serial no. 2. In the selection list. The said Anil Kumar Pandey was not qualified under the Statute of the University, therefore, he was not granted approval by the Vice Chancellor for adhoc appointment which is reflected by Annexure-2. Thereafter, committee of management passed a resolution dated 22-2-1990 in favour of the petitioner which is reflected by Annexure-3. The University granted approval to the petitioner for three months or till 30th June, 1989 which is reflected by Annexure-4 to the counter. In the meantime Anil Kumar Pandey filed a representation before the Chancellor. The committee of management has requested the University to extend the services of the petitioner. The University showed its inability to grant approval in favour of the petitioner extending his term of appointment during the pendency of the representation before the Chancellor, that is evident by Annexure-5. In the meantime Anil Kumar Pandey filed a representation before the Chancellor. The committee of management has requested the University to extend the services of the petitioner. The University showed its inability to grant approval in favour of the petitioner extending his term of appointment during the pendency of the representation before the Chancellor, that is evident by Annexure-5. In the meantime Anil Kumar had filed a writ in which following order was passed on 27-11-1989- "In view of the decision in Kumari Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, 1988 U. P. Local Bodies and Education Cases 397, an interim mandamus is issued to opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 either to show cause within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is served or to treat the petitioner in service and permit him to work, and pay his salary." It is denied that the petitioner, is continuing on the post. 8. Both Anil Kumar Pandey and Raj Kumar Jain claim the appointment on adhoc basis against one post in Organic Chemistry in the College. The question that falls for consideration in the writ petition No. 18895 of 1989 will be whether Anil Kumar Pandey was qualified for the appointment and whether his appointment was required to be approved by the Vice Chancellor. If Anil Kumar is qualified Vice Chancellor has nothing to do with the adhoc appointment then Anil Kumar has a right to continue on the post till a regular appointment is made by the Commission. If Anil Kumar's writ fails then Raj Kumar Jain's appointment is to continue on adhoc basis till a regular selection is made by the Commission for the post. Both sides were heard. Learned counsel argued elaborately their respective cases of both the candidates with reference to the provisions of University Act, statute framed under the Act and with reference to U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. In Anil Kumar Pandey's writ petition Raj Kumar Jain is not a respondent and in Raj Kumar Jain's writ petition Anil Kumar Pandey is not the respondent. However, University has filed a detailed counter giving details and the two petitions were heard together, therefore, it is not necessary to make a direction for adding the two petitioners as party in each other's writ petitions. However, University has filed a detailed counter giving details and the two petitions were heard together, therefore, it is not necessary to make a direction for adding the two petitioners as party in each other's writ petitions. Pleadings are complete and there is no dispute in the qualification of the two petitioners. The learned counsel for both the sides have been beard therefore no prejudice is caused to them by not being party in each other's writ petition. 9. Under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act (hereinafter referred as a Commission Act), it is provided that when the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 12, and the" Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely adhoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor. The adhoc appointment so made shall cease with effect from the earliest of the following dates : (a) When the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post, (b) where the period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 12 expires, (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such adhoc appointment. 10. From the reading of section 16, it transpires that the managing committee has a power to make adhoc appointment under section 16 of the Commission Act. This section does not require approval of Vice Chancellor for adhoc appointments. Therefore, any resolution of the managing committee with regard to the appointment of adhoc lecturer is final and Vice Chancellor has no say in the matter. Managing committee is not required to seek approval of the Vice Chancellor with regard to the appointment which is made by it on adhoc basis. If managing committee seeks approval of the Vice Chancellor for an adhoc appointment made by it, it seems to be an exercise in futality because law does not require approval of Vice Chancellor for an adhoc appointment to be made by the managing committee. This principal is also laid down in Kumari Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools 1988 UP LB EC 397. This principal is also laid down in Kumari Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools 1988 UP LB EC 397. It was held that Vice Chancellor has no power to interfere with the orders of management in appointment made on adhoc basis to such post. Order setting aside appointment by Management passed by Vice Chancellor was held to be liable to be quashed. This authority invariably has been followed by this court in respect of the power of the managing committee in making the adhoc appointment and Vice Chancellor not having any say in the matter of making of an adhoc appointment. Learned counsel for the University and for Sri Raj Kumar Jain argued that Anil Kumar was not qualified for being appointed, therefore, resolution of the managing committee, approving the selection of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey was against the provisions of Universities Act and Statue framed thereunder. They also argued that Vice Chancellor has power under the U. P. State Universities Act to grant approval or withhold approval even if the Statute may not expressly say so. 11. Chapter X of the Statute of Rohilkhand University lays down the qualifications for appointment of teachers in the affiliated colleges. The following is the qualification for appointment of a lecturer as amended in 1980 by 5th amendment : (a) M.Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work; and (b) A Consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class Master's degree or foreign degree in the relevant subject. 12. The Statute, 10-01 has been amended. 5th Amendment has substituted the original Statute in Chapter X. The Statute, therefore, requires apart from academic qualifications a consistently good academic record with atleast first or high second class Master's degree or their equivalent degree in the relevant subject. So the requirement under the old Statute for having obtained a particular percentage of marks in Master's degree is done away with. This Statute applies to the post of Lecturers in faculty of Science and Commerce. 13. So the requirement under the old Statute for having obtained a particular percentage of marks in Master's degree is done away with. This Statute applies to the post of Lecturers in faculty of Science and Commerce. 13. Along with the academic qualifications the selection committee may take into consideration the published work indicating the capacity of the candidate for independent research work and if a candidate has first class or high second class Master's degree and consistently a good academic record, he may be selected by the selection committee. 14. In the present case the petitioners has a Ph.D degree, therefore, it seems that his research work must have been considered and it must have indicated the capacity of the candidate for independent research work. There is no allegation against the members who constituted the selection committee. The University has not stated that members were in any manner favourable to the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey and were not a men of high integrity. That being so it is to be presumed that the selection committee comprised of the men who were impartial and men of integrity. If they have considered the research work of the petitioner, it must have satisfied the requirement of the standard which is set out by the Statute for the research work. The consistent good academic record in the case of Anil Kumar Pandey also is not that inferior which can be ignored by the selection committee. The appointment was being made on adhoc basis. Therefore, the opinion formed by the selection committee for recommending the petitioner cannot be said to be bad. However, this court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the selection committee. This court has to say whether the selection committee has applied its mind and acted without any arbitrariness. It appears that selection committee's selection does not suffer from any infirmity in so far as they have selected petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey for the post on adhoc basis. The selection approved by the committee of management could not be disapproved by the Vice Chancellor because he has no power to do so. 15. It appears that selection committee's selection does not suffer from any infirmity in so far as they have selected petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey for the post on adhoc basis. The selection approved by the committee of management could not be disapproved by the Vice Chancellor because he has no power to do so. 15. It is now well settled that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner under the Statute that thing has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner The appointment of the adhoc lecturer under the Statute could be made only by the managing committee and approval of the Vice Chancellor was not required. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor's disapproval for the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis is an exercise of power without authority. The said disapproval is to be treated as non-est. 16. Mr. Naithani has referred to Statute 1001 to show as to how a consistent good academic record is to be assessed. He also submitted that the petitioner A. K. Pandey could not be said to have a good academic record consistently. It may be stated that rigour of sub-clause (7) of the Statute seems to have been diluted by Statute 1001 sub-clause (5) which says that if the selection committee is of a view that research work of a candidate, as indicated from his thesis, is of very high standard it may relax any of the qualification prescribed in sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or sub clause (b) of clause (2) as the case may be. So the requirement of having consistent good academic record can be relaxed if research work of a candidate is of a very high standard. By recommending the petitioner for the post of lecturer on adhoc basis it seems the selection committee ag also the managing committee has resorted to sub-clause (5) of the statute, if not expressly, but impliedly. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Naithani cannot be accepted because the Statute itself makes it possible to relax the condition of Statute 10 01 subclause (1) (b). That being so it cannot be said that petitioner A. K. Pandey selection for the post was bad in any manner. 17. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Naithani cannot be accepted because the Statute itself makes it possible to relax the condition of Statute 10 01 subclause (1) (b). That being so it cannot be said that petitioner A. K. Pandey selection for the post was bad in any manner. 17. Disapproval by the Vice Chancellor in making the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis on the reccommendation of the managing committee which in turn had accepted the recommendation of the selection committee, is sought to be justified on the basis of section 13 of the U. P. State Universities Act. It empowers the Vice Chancellor to exercise powers and duties which are enumerated in the section. Sub-clause (4) of this section prescribes that it shall be the duty of the Vice Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. Mr. Naithani has submitted that since the petitioner Mr. A. K. Pandey's selection was in violation of the Statute, therefore, the Vice Chancellor will be deemed to have a power to refuse the approval of the appointment of the petitioner Sri Pandey. If he would have not done so the Statute framed under the Act would have been observed in breach which would be against the sprit of section 13 (4) of the U. P. State Universities Act. 18. AS already said, there is no breach of the Statute in making the adhoc appointment of the petitioner under section 16 of the Commission Act. The selection committee seems to have impliedly relaxed the rigor of Statute 1001 (I) (b) of the Statute and made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner A. K. Pandey. That could be done under the Statute because the petitioner had fulfilled the qualification under the Statute 1001 (1) (a) of the Statute. There can be implied relaxation and if selection is recommended it is safe to infer that the selection committee has exercised powers under the Statute 10-01 (5) of the Statute. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor could not, under section 13 (4) of the U. P. Universities Act, refuse the approval to the adhoc appointment of petitioner A. K. Pandey. Mr. Naithani also placed reliance on section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor could not, under section 13 (4) of the U. P. Universities Act, refuse the approval to the adhoc appointment of petitioner A. K. Pandey. Mr. Naithani also placed reliance on section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act. This section does not deal with the adhoc appointment of lecturer in the affiliated college, that is governed by section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. Therefore, no help can be sought from the provisions of the said section. 19. It is also contended that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Chancellor, therefore, he should be given an opportunity to decide the representation. IT is further contended that Chancellor had the power to decide the matter under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. In the earlier part of this judgment it has been held that the Vice Chancellor's action in rejecting the proposal of the petitioner's adhoc appointment is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Chancellor to decide any thing now. 20. The adhoc appointment has to continue only till the regular selection is made by the Commission The condition for adhoc appointment is also given in section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. The provisions of this Act have over-riding effect. When the Vice Chancellor's action is without jurisdiction, the adhoc appointment of the petitioner A. K. Pandey has to continue. In view of the findings given in Anil Kumar Pandey's writ petition, the writ petition filed by Sri Raj Kumar Jain who was at number 2 in the selection list has to be dismissed because recommendation in his favour was made by the managing Committee on the ground which is held to be non-est. If the Vice Chancellor would not have exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey would have been appointed as lecturer on adhoc basis. It was intervention of the Vice Chancellor in the matter which prevented petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey to seek the appointment order and enable Sri Raj Kumar Jain to get an order for three months or till 30th June, 1989. Since the first act of the Vice Chancellor to reject the resolution of the managing committee under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act is held to be without jurisdiction! Since the first act of the Vice Chancellor to reject the resolution of the managing committee under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act is held to be without jurisdiction! therefore, any thing done subsequently by him is to be treated non-est. 21. It is immaterial whether the petitioner had joined on the post or not. He has a valid recommendation in his favour which is based on resolution of the selection committee and his appointment will be deemed to have come into force on the date the managing committee passed the resolution in his favour. Any thing done by the Vice Chancellor or in pursuance of the directions of the Vice Chancellor, has to be ignored and it should be treated non-est. 22. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition no. 18895 of 1989 filed by Anil Kumar Pandey is allowed and he is held to be validly appointed adhoc lecturer in Organic Chemistry in pursuance of the recommendation of the managing committee on 28-12-1988. The disapproval of this resolution on the part of the Vice Chancellor is declared invalid and without jurisdiction. Petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey is entitled to continue as lecturer in Organic Chemistry in the College till a regular appointment to the post is made by the Commission. As a result of the declaration in favour of petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey, the writ petition filed by Raj Kumar Jain deserves to be dismissed because the recommendation in his favour is based on the rejection of the resolution of the managing committee in favour of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey. The Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to reject the recommendation in favour of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey. Therefore, he could not make any recommendation in favour of Sri Raj Kumar Jain. 23. Accordingly, writ petition no. 18895 of 1989 is allowed with the directions given hereinabove and the writ petition no. 2663 of 1990 filed by Sri Raj Kumar Jain is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.