JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - On 31st July, 1983 the petitioner was appointed as temporary Lecturer for teaching evening classes which were being run by Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. It is not disputed that the aforesaid appointment had been in pursuance of an advertisement which had called for applications for a appointing Lecturers for the day classes as well as for the evening classes. A Selection Committee had interviewed the candidates. The petitioner was not selected for the post of Lecturer for the day classes. He along with two other persons was, however, selected for the evening classes by the Selection Committee. 2. On 4.12.1985 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer for a period of six months or till regular appointment was made in exercise of the powers under Section 16(6)(8) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter described as the "Act"). The aforesaid appointment was repeated by appointment letters dated 12.1.1986, 13.7.1986 and 28.2.1987 which are contained in Annexures"3", "4", and "5" to the writ petition. All these appointments were made in exercise of the emergency powers under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the permanent post of Lecturer Social Work, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. It has been urged that in view of the provisions of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act, the petitioner should be deemed to have been absorbed permanently on the post of Lecturer Social Work, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. 4. On behalf of the Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed. Along with the supplementary counter-affidavit the proceedings of the Selection Committee have been filed which shows that on the post of Lecturers for the day classes, 19 applications were received which included the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Lecturer for the day classes. It is also clear that the advertisement for the post of day Lecturers was separate. In pursuance of the separate advertisement for the post of Lecturers for the evening classes only 9 applications were received and out of the 9 applications the Selection Committee had recommended the names of three persons to be appointed as temporary Lecturers for teaching evening lasses which included the name of the petitioner. 5. In pursuance of the separate advertisement for the post of Lecturers for the evening classes only 9 applications were received and out of the 9 applications the Selection Committee had recommended the names of three persons to be appointed as temporary Lecturers for teaching evening lasses which included the name of the petitioner. 5. The sole question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether on the facts of this case the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act. From the undisputed facts it is clear that the petitioner had been recommended by the Selection Committee for being appointed in the evening classes on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/-. He was not recommended for being appointed as a Lecturer for the day classes. The petitioner had thus been appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee only to the evening classes. So far as the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer to the day classes is concerned that has been done in exercise of emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 13 which require consideration for adjudication of the question raised in this writ petition runs as follows: "13 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR (6) Where any matter is for urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter. Provided that no such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from the provisions of the Statutes of the Ordinances : Provided further that if the officers, authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken it may refer the matter to the Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit and there upon, it shall cease to have effect or, as the case may be taken effect in the modified form. So however that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor : (8) Where the exercise of the power by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (6) involves the appointment of an officer or a teacher of the University, such appointment shall terminate on appointment being made in the prescribed manner or on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, whichever is earlier." 6. A bare persual of the provisions of Section 13(6)(8) makes it clear that the appointment can only be made for a fixed period of six months. The appointment letters contained in Annexures 2 to 5 are distinct appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that the appointment made by the Vice-Chancellor is a regular appointment and cannot be said to be an appointment under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. We are not prepared to accept the aforesaid argument inasmuch as there is no other power under which the Vice-Chancellor can make the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer for the day classes. The appointment is clearly in exercise of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. 8. There is one more thing which may also be seen. The last appointment letter of the petitioner is dated 28.2.1987. The appointment has been made only till 31st May, 1987. The earlier appointment letter is contained in Annexure "4" dated 13.7.1986 which was for a period of six months. This appointment had come to an end on 12th January, 1987. There is one more thing which may also be seen. The last appointment letter of the petitioner is dated 28.2.1987. The appointment has been made only till 31st May, 1987. The earlier appointment letter is contained in Annexure "4" dated 13.7.1986 which was for a period of six months. This appointment had come to an end on 12th January, 1987. There was thus a gap from 12th January, 1987 till 28th February, 1987 when the petitioner had no appointment letter on the post of the Lecturer in the day classes. Section 31(3) (b) provides as follows: "31. Appointment of Teachers.: (1)...... (2)..... (3) (a)..... (b) Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a Selection Committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post of same cadre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department, then unless the Executive Counsel or the Management, as the case may be, decides to terminate his services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee: Provided that this clause shall not apply unless the teacher concern holds the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of such substantive appointment and he has served continuously for a period of not less than one year after his appointment made after reference to a Selection Committee: Provided further that appointment in a substantive capacity under this clause of a teacher who had served, before such appointment, continuously for a period of less than two years, shall be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply accordingly." From the aforesaid provision it is thus clear that the provisions will only apply where the teacher is appointed after reference to a Selection Committee to a temporary post. Petitioner has never been appointed to the post of a Lecturer in the day classes after reference to the Selection Committee. Petitioner has never been appointed to the post of a Lecturer in the day classes after reference to the Selection Committee. That appointment was only under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. The petitioner can thus not avail the benefit of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act. This Court in the case of Dr. Chandra Dev Pandey v. Chancellor, Allahabad University Lucknow, (1989) 1 UP LBEC 727 has held that the benefit of regularisation under Section 31(3)(b) of the Act cannot be availed by a teacher who has been appointed under Section 13(6)(8) of the Act. 9. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 31(3)(b) of the State University Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court is vacated. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.