ORDER M. L. Bhat, J. :- Writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 and writ petition No. 3184 of 1990 are being decided by one judgment. In both the petitions common questions of fact and law are involved. 2. In Writ Petition No. 16318 of 1989 Dr. Birendra Kumar Dixit, petitioner, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner in continuous service on ad hoc basis on the post of Lecturer in Commerce till the post is permanently filled up by the Commission and claims payment of salary from 11-4-1989. The petitioner also claims for a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to extend his term of ad hoc appointment for the next session and for a direction that the respondent No. 2 be restrained to appoint anyone on the post on which the petitioner is working on ad hoc basis. 3. The facts on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed are given briefly. The petitioner was appointed on 12-10-1987 in leave vacancy of one Shushil Kumar Gupta. This appointment was to continue till 30th June, 1988. The petitioner's appointment in leave vacancy was approved by the respondent No. 1 on 29-10-1987. Another lecturer namely, Sri Ajai Tyagi went on leave and the petitioner's appointment in leave vacancy of Ajai Tyagi was recommended on 17-4-1988. The petitioner's appointment was to continue from 1-7-1988 to 30-6-1989. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the respondent No. 1 on 25-6-1988. This is reflected by Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was working on ad hoc basis and during his tenure of appointment the respondent No. 5 is said to have created a new post of Commerce Lecturer in the institution and by virtue of the resolution dated 3-3-1989 the petitioner was recommended for being appointed on ad hoc basis as Commerce Lecturer. Copies of the resolution dated 3-3-1989 and letter dated 11- 4-1989 are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition. After working in the institution up to- 19-4-1989 the petitioner is said to have proceeded on medical leave from 20-4-1989 to 15-5-1989 on account of his illness. The petitioner joined the institution on 16-5-1989 after availing of the leave. The petitioner came to know that his services were terminated after 26th April, 1989 because Sri Ajai Tyagi had joined his duties on 26-4-1989. The petitioner joined the institution on 16-5-1989 after availing of the leave. The petitioner came to know that his services were terminated after 26th April, 1989 because Sri Ajai Tyagi had joined his duties on 26-4-1989. A registered letter was addressed to the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 5. Against the termination order dated 13-5-1989 the petitioner is said to have made a representation before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is said to have passed an order on the representation of the petitioner on 6-6-1989 directing the respondent No. 2 that the order dated 13-5- 1989 was illegal and the petitioner was entitled to continue on the post which was newly created by the order of the respondent No. 5. True copies of the representation dated 2-6- 1989 and the order dated 6-6-1989 are Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition. The proposal of the respondent No. 2 dated 3-3-1989 is said to have been approved from 1-7-1989 to 30-6-1990 but no approval regarding the extension of the petitioner's services was given by the respondent No. 1 because his name was not forwarded for approval by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner despite his attempt did not get approval of his appointment. On 4-8-1989 the petitioner heard through newspaper that the respondent No. 6 had advertised the post of ad hoc lecturer on which the petitioner was working. On 5-8- 1989 the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 1 copy whereof was sent to the respondents Nos. 3 and 5. Copy of the representation is also placed on the record. The petitioner was told that his services came to an end on 30-6-1989 and the publication was made for filling up the post. 6. The petitioner claims that his ad hoc appointment was made against substantive vacancy which was created subsequently by the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 2 has illegally not sent the petitioner's name for approval of the respondent No. 1 though the petitioner's appointment was to continue up to 30-6-1989. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to remain on the post till the same is filled up by a permanent lecturer approved by the Commission. The respondent No. 5 has issued a circular on 15-6-1989 that ad hoc appointments made up to 30-6-1989 shall continue up to 30-6-1990. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to remain on the post till the same is filled up by a permanent lecturer approved by the Commission. The respondent No. 5 has issued a circular on 15-6-1989 that ad hoc appointments made up to 30-6-1989 shall continue up to 30-6-1990. The publication about the petitioner's termination of services is said to be wholly illegal and against the provisions of law because the petitioner was entitled to hold the post till the same was permanently filled up by the commission. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents. 7. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 prayed for the vacation of the interim stay and resisted the writ petition in their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that Sri Ajai Tyagi had joined the post on 26-4-1989 and the petitioner's appointment had come to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, no question would arise to consider his leave application. The petitioner's services are said to have come to an end on 25-4-1989. It is, however, admitted that the post of lecturer was sanctioned by the Director of Education by his letter dated 27-1-1989. The committee of management is said to have notified the vacancy to the commission on 1- 2-1989 as required under Section 12 of the Commission Act. The petitioner is said to have applied for being appointed in pursuance of the advertisement notice. Only two applications are said to have been received in pursuance of the said advertisement. The committee of management readvertised the post. No selection has been made for appointment to the said post. The management is entitled to fill up the post on ad hoc basis. The respondents have denied that the petitioner was ever appointed on the newly created post. However, the resolution dated 3-3-1989 is said to have not been passed. The contents of Annexure 5 to the writ petition are said to be forged. The petitioner was never appointed on the newly created post in accordance with the Commission Act. The direction given by the Vice-Chancellor on 6-6-1989 are said to be not binding on the Commission as these were illegal. The Commission did not make any selection within the period of three months as required under the Commission Act nor has it till date made any selection for the post. The direction given by the Vice-Chancellor on 6-6-1989 are said to be not binding on the Commission as these were illegal. The Commission did not make any selection within the period of three months as required under the Commission Act nor has it till date made any selection for the post. Therefore, the committee of management had to advertise the post. It is stated that the petitioner was never appointed on the newly created post. Hence the question of his continuance on the said post, therefore, did not arise. 8. In short the defence put up by the respondent is that the petitioner has no claim for being appointed on ad hoc basis till regular selection is made by the Commission under the Commission Act. His appointment against clear vacancy on ad hoc basis is also denied. It is stated that he was appointed against leave vacancy and the moment the incumbent of the post joined his duty the petitioner's services were rightly ceased. 9. A supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by an employee of the respondent No. 3. This Court granted interim stay in favour of the petitioner and directed the Vice-Chancellor to decide the representation filed before him by the petitioner. In supplementary counter-affidavit the respondents have alleged that they were not given any opportunity of hearing before the representation was decided. As such they have challenged the decision of the Vice- Chancellor. The petitioner's right to receive salary after 24-41989 is also denied. 10. A detailed rejoinder affidavit is filed by the petitioner in which he has reaffirmed the pleas set up by him in the writ petition. 11. In writ petition No. 3184 of 1990 the Committee of Management challenges the order dated 9-1-1990 by which the representation of respondent No. 2 in that writ petition was considered and decided. The extension of the services of the respondent No. 2 was already approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The respondent No. 2 ought to have been allowed to continue till 26-4-1989. The respondent No. 2 who is the petitioner in writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 has filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in this writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the petitioner which reiterates the pleas raised by the petitioner in the main writ petition. 12. The respondent No. 2 who is the petitioner in writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 has filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in this writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the petitioner which reiterates the pleas raised by the petitioner in the main writ petition. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the writ petitions. The petitioner in writ petition No. 16318 of 1986 (sic) that he was appointed against the newly created post of Commerce Lecturer which was substantive. Therefore, he could continue till the post was filled up by the commission on regular basis. His initial appointment in leave vacancy is not disputed by him but during the course of his appointment on leave vacancy a newly created post became available against which the petitioner was allowed to continue. Therefore, he cannot be treated now to be working on a post which was available due to leave of its incumbent. The termination order was held bad by the Vice-Chancellor and the order of the Vice-Chancellor is said to have been not challenged. The management did not seek any extension beyond 30-6-1989 for the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act hereinafter called as the Act. This section has been the subject matter of writ petition, Munish Kumar Sharma v. The District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun, reported in 1990 AWC 463 . It is held that services of an ad hoc appointee against a substantive vacancy in an institution governed by the Act cannot be dispensed with at any time as it was contrary to the procedure provided under the Act. In Subhash Chandra Gupta v. Committee of Management, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 492, it is held that termination of appointment of an ad hoc employee is not legal. The appointee is entitled to continue in service till proper selection is made by the Commission and the selected candidate joins the post. 13. The respondents in writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 contend that the appointment of the petitioner was in leave vacancy. Therefore Section 6 of the Commission Act is (Not ?) applicable. Although they admitted that a new post was created but they denied that the petitioner was appointed against the newly created post. 13. The respondents in writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 contend that the appointment of the petitioner was in leave vacancy. Therefore Section 6 of the Commission Act is (Not ?) applicable. Although they admitted that a new post was created but they denied that the petitioner was appointed against the newly created post. It is stated that the Vice-Chancellor granted approval till 30-6-1989 but due to some manoevring in the office it was written that approval is granted till 30-6-89 or till the date when the selected candidate joins the post. If the approval is only up to 30-6-1989 the appendage with this direction in the order is not legal but is the outcome of the manoevring and hence is not consistent with the spirit of the order. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have granted the approval without application of his mind. The petitioner's appointment in the leave vacancy of Sri Ajai Tyagi came to an end on 25-4-1989 when Sri Tyagi joined the post. The committee of management is said to have published an advertisement for appointment on the newly created post of lecturer in Commerce inadvertently. However, no selection is said to have been made on the basis of the said selection. It is further contended that the moment the management came to know about the approval in favour of the petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor it wrote a letter to the Vice-chancellor on 16-4-1989 denying any meeting of the committee of management on 3-3-1989 and the question of passing of the aforesaid resolution relied upon by the petitioner does not arise. It is stated that no such resolution was ever passed. 14. As to whether any resolution was passed or not by the committee is a question of fact but the Vice-Chancellor has accepted the resolution and allowed the petitioner to work against the newly created post. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in questioning the decision of the Vice- Chancellor which is a finding of fact. 15. The learned counsel for the management has placed reliance on the case of Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 397. It says that under Section 16(1) of the Commission Act the power of appointment has been given to the management only. It has not mentioned Vice-Chancellor or any other authority as the appointing authority. 15. The learned counsel for the management has placed reliance on the case of Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 397. It says that under Section 16(1) of the Commission Act the power of appointment has been given to the management only. It has not mentioned Vice-Chancellor or any other authority as the appointing authority. Even if an appointment is made by the managing committee the Vice-Chancellor cannot cancel it. It also lays down that ad hoc appointment cannot be made before the expiry of three months as mentioned in Section 16(1) of the Commission Act. Such an appointment is irregular. In the case of Bhadra Pal Singh v. Chairman, U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad, reported in 1990 (1) UPLBEC 390 it was held that once a person is appointed as ad hoc lecturer and he ceases to hold the post, he has no right to be appointed on any other post unless the entire process of law comes into action for appointment to that post. 16. Placing reliance on the aforesaid authority it is stated that firstly the Vice- Chancellor could not make ad hoc appointment or interfere in making ad hoc appointment under Section 16 of the Act. Secondly, once leave vacancy has ceased which, according to the respondents, in the present case happened on 25-4-1989 appointment cannot be converted for the newly created post. 16A. In this case the newly created post was created when the petitioner's appointment against leave vacancy had not come to an end. It was during his appointment against leave vacancy when the new post was created. The new post was available and the resolution to appoint the petitioner against the new post was passed by the managing committee itself on 3-3-1989 which is termed by the management as forged. However, in this writ petition it is very difficult to treat the said resolution as forged because there is no foundation laid by the management for holding that the said resolution was forged. The appointment, therefore, was in pursuance of the resolution and super-added to it was the command of the Vice-Chancellor which was not inconsistent with the resolution. The Vice-Chancellor could not have disapproved the resolution when the resolution was sent to him but he has upheld the resolution. No fault can be found in his action. 17. The appointment, therefore, was in pursuance of the resolution and super-added to it was the command of the Vice-Chancellor which was not inconsistent with the resolution. The Vice-Chancellor could not have disapproved the resolution when the resolution was sent to him but he has upheld the resolution. No fault can be found in his action. 17. The petitioner was allowed to work against the newly created post by the management and the newly created post was substantive. The resolution may be irregular but that did not affect the right of the petitioner Mr. Dixit to work against the newly created post on ad hoc basis. Even otherwise in the earlier orders of the petitioner against leave vacancy it was laid down that he will work up to 30-6-1989 or till regular selection is made by the commission. That finding was not challenged at the appropriate time by the management or the University. That being so, it is too late in the day for the management to assail that order. The result is that the petitioner's services are to be treated as ad hoc against a substantive vacancy because a post was created when he was working in leave vacancy and was permitted by the management committee to work on the newly created post. 18. The petition No. 3184 of 1990 filed by the management against the order of the Vice- Chancellor is also not maintainable because the order of the Vice-Chancellor does not suffer from any infirmity. Under Section 68 of the State Universities Act the Chancellor has been vested with the power to decide any question which might have arisen about any person having been duly elected or appointed as or is entitled to be member of any authority or other body of the University, or any other decision of any authority or Officer of the University including any question as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulation, not being a Statute or ordinance made or approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor, is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder. So the Management should have invoked the provisions of Section 68 if they were aggrieved against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. So the Management should have invoked the provisions of Section 68 if they were aggrieved against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. In face of the alternative remedy having been available to the Management it will not be appropriate for them to agitate the matter in this Court without an explanation as to why they did not resort to the alternative remedy provided under U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 19. For the reasons stated above the writ petition No. 16318 of 1989 filed by Mr. Birendra Dix it succeeds and is allowed with a command to the respondents that he be treated in service on ad hoc basis till the post held by him on ad hoc basis is filled up by the Commission on regular basis or till he is removed from service in accordance with law. 20. The writ petition No. 3184 of 1990 has no merit and is dismissed. 21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own cost