JUDGMENT : N.N. Mittal, J. An order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Meerut University directing the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Lecturer in Commerce Department of the institution is under challenge in this petition. 2. Dispute time being granted no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Vice-Chancellor of the University. Even the managing committee of the Institution, respondent No. 2 has not filed any counter-affidavit. Only respondent No. 2, the person appointed by the Vice-Chancellor as a lecturer in commerce department by the impugned order, has filed his counter-affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length including Sri A.K. Yog who represented the Vice-Chancellor. 4. Certain posts in the Commerce Department of the Institution having become vacant it was duly notified to the Higher Education Service Commission. No recommendation having been received from the Commission for a period of three months the respondent No. 2 took proceedings for appointing a teacher purely on ad hoc basis. Accordingly, the post was advertised on 7-12-1990 and several persons applied for the aforesaid posts. Initially 16-1-1991 was fixed for interview but for some reasons the date was postponed to 6-2-91. The selection committee, according to the impugned order, consisted of (1) the President of the managing committee, (2) Principal of the College, (3) expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and (4) the Principals' nominee. The aforesaid selection committee recommended the name of respondent No. 3 at serial No. 1 while the name of the petitioner was recommended at Serial No. 2. It may be mentioned here that admittedly only three persons had appeared before the selection committee for interview while five other candidates had given representations to the committee giving reasons why they were avoiding to appear before the selection committee. The recommendation of the selection committee was put up before the executive committee of the College on 16-2-1991 and after considering the representation made by five candidates who had boycotted the selection committee the executive committee decided not to accept the recommendation made by the selection committee. The selection committee did not send its reasons to the Vice-Chancellor for not accepting the recommendation of the selection committee. The selection committee did not send its reasons to the Vice-Chancellor for not accepting the recommendation of the selection committee. It appears that the candidates who had been recommended for the post in question and some other posts made representation to the Vice-Chancellor in this regard and accordingly, the managing committee was asked to forward necessary documents to the Vice-Chancellor. After considering the representation the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order whereby he disagreed with the executive committee and accepted the recommendation made by the selection committee. He, accordingly, directed the managing committee to appoint respondent No. 3 as a lecturer in Commerce till a regular appointment was made by the Higher Education Commission. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition. 5. Before we take up the main ground of attack a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of respondent No. 3 challenging the right of the petitioner to file the petition. It is urged that the petitioner had appeared before the selection committee without raising any objection against the constitution of the selection committee and he cannot now be heard to say anything against the recommendation made by the committee. For this the respondent relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Sorana v. University of Lucknow AIR 1976 SC 2428 . The ratio of that decision, however, is not applicable to the instant case. There the petitioner had challenged the constitution of the selection committee on the ground of bias against some of its members. The petitioner had admittedly knowledge of the bias of these members of the committee and inspite of this he had appeared before the selection committee and took a chance. He having become unsuccessful questioned the constitution of the committee on the ground of bias. It was under these circumstances that the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court The position in the present case is different inasmuch as the order under challenge has been passed by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the recommendation made by the selection committee since the same had already been turned down by the managing committee in its resolution, dated 16-7-1991. The petitioner in this case is not challenging the recommendation of the selection committee on the ground of bias. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the recommendation made by the selection committee since the same had already been turned down by the managing committee in its resolution, dated 16-7-1991. The petitioner in this case is not challenging the recommendation of the selection committee on the ground of bias. We may point out that at the very out set we had asked Sri R.P. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner that he had made certain allegations of bias against the then Vice-Chancellor hut he has not been impleaded by name. Sri Goel submitted that he will not make submission regarding bias against the Vice-Chancellor at all but will confine his submission to legal aspects. In view of this also the question of bias becomes irrelevant. The preliminary objection taken by the respondent is, therefore, without any force. 6. The main ground of attack is that the appointment was to be made purely on ad hoc basis under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 and it did not envisage that the managing committee should obtain approval of the Vice-Chancellor in this matter. The argument that has been advanced is that the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 is a special Act and its provision override the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Section 16 of 1980 Act is a special provision and for this it is not necessary that the managing committee should intimate to the Vice-Chancellor its reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the selection committee or to be bound by any order passed by the Vice-Chancellor in the matter. 7. The scheme of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 will indicate that it applies only in respect of appointment of teachers to be affiliated college. So far as the appointment of teachers to the University are concerned it has been excepted from the provision of this act as would be clear from the definition of the word 'appointment' in Section 2(a) of the Act. On the establishment of the commission every appointment of a teacher of any college shall be made by the management only on the recommendation of the commission. Obviously this provision relates to the substantive appointment as a teacher against the permanent vacancy and does not deal with appointment of an ad hoc teacher which is specifically excepted by this section. On the establishment of the commission every appointment of a teacher of any college shall be made by the management only on the recommendation of the commission. Obviously this provision relates to the substantive appointment as a teacher against the permanent vacancy and does not deal with appointment of an ad hoc teacher which is specifically excepted by this section. It is significant to note that this section starts with a non obstante clause because of which the provision of Section 12 will prevail over any contrary provision contained in U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Thus the overriding affect of the section would be that the provision of State Universities Act shall not apply so far as the question of appointing a teacher to affiliated college is concerned. As a matter of fact the role of the commission is the same as that of a selection committee. Its job is to make recommendation for appointment of teachers in the affiliated college of the State in various faculties. All vacancies occurring in various affiliated college have to be intimated to the Commission and the commission is charged with a duty to make recommendation within three months. Section 16 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act is an exception to this general provision. According to Section 16 of the failure of the commission to make recommendation within three months after the vacancy had been duly notified to it the management gets a right to appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis. There is no provision in Section. 31 of the State Universities Act for making ad hoc appointment of a teacher. That section deals only with regular appointment which also is now subject to the provision of the Higher Education Service Commission Act. The right of management to make ad hoc appointment under Section 16 is not curtailed in any manner by the provision of Section 31 of the State University Act. The power is unbridled, independent and absolute. 8. Section 31 (4) (d) prescribes the constitution of the selection committee for appointment of teacher of affiliated and associated college. Sub-clause 8 (b) prescribes the procedure where the management does not agree with the recommendation made by the selection committee and lays down that in such an event the matter will be referred to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of disagreement and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final. Sub-clause 8 (b) prescribes the procedure where the management does not agree with the recommendation made by the selection committee and lays down that in such an event the matter will be referred to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of disagreement and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final. The question, however, is whether this procedure is to be followed in the case of an appointment made on ad hoc basis under Section 16 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 also. On a careful perusal of various provisions of the State Universities Act and the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 we are of the opinion that the procedure prescribed under Section 31 of the State Universities Act does not come in the picture when making an appointment under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service commission Act, 1980. 9. A somewhat similar question was raised in the case of Madhu Chauhan v. D.I.O.S. and others, 1980 UP Local Bodies and Education cases 397, where a Division Bench sitting at Lucknow considered this matter and it was held that the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not have any say in the matter of ad hoc appointment covered by Section 16(1) of 1980 Act A similar view was expressed by learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Anil Kumar Pandey v. Vice-Chancellor Ruhelkhand University, 1990 (2) U.P. Local Bodies and Education cases 1228 where also appointment made on ad hoc basis under Section 16 was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the learned single Judge held that such non-approval was non-est as the Vice-Chancellor had no power to intervene in the matter. The position in the instant case is also similar. Once an appointment has been made or the recommendation of the selection committee is not accepted by the management the Vice-Chancellor cannot impose his own will in the matter. The position in the instant case is also similar. Once an appointment has been made or the recommendation of the selection committee is not accepted by the management the Vice-Chancellor cannot impose his own will in the matter. It is for the management committee to say whether a particular appointment on ad hoc basis has to be made or not and if it decides to make appointment the same must be given effect to subject to the provisions of Section 16 of 1980 Act, where the management refuses to accept the recommendation of the selection committee that also must prevail and the management committee would be free to re-advertise the post for making fresh selection to the post on ad hoc basis. In our opinion, therefore, the contention of the petitioner must prevail and the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on, 20-3-1991 vide Annexure-1 to the petitioner must be quashed. 10. In the end it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. To support his submission the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sia Ram v. University of Lucknow 1981 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational cases 276. That case, however is not applicable because it relates to the appointment of a teacher of the University. 11. The other case to which reference has been made is Deep Kumar Shukla and another v. Allahabad University, 1984 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational cases 293, where a Division Bench of this Court was considering the question of alternative remedy before Section 68 could be attracted. What is necessary is that the order should have been passed by the Vice-Chancellor within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act as in the instant case the order had been passed outside the provision of the State Universities Act and is wholly without jurisdiction. The question of approaching the chancellor under Section 68 does not arise. 12. Reference to the case of Digambar Jain High School v. The Chancellor, Meerut University, 1983 UPLBEC 438, is also not relevant because exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor in that case was also within the Scope of the powers under the State Uni-verities Act. The question of approaching the chancellor under Section 68 does not arise. 12. Reference to the case of Digambar Jain High School v. The Chancellor, Meerut University, 1983 UPLBEC 438, is also not relevant because exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor in that case was also within the Scope of the powers under the State Uni-verities Act. What has happened in the instant case is that ad hoc appointment was required to be made under the provisions of special Act and that takes away the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in that matter. In these circumstances the question of availing alternative remedy by the petitioner cannot arise. The point urged has no force and is, therefore, not acceptable. 13. The writ petition succeeds and the order dated 20-3-1991 passed by the Vice-Chancellor is hereby quashed. The management will now be free to take further action in the matter for making ad hoc appointment if in the meanwhile a regular appointment has not been made by the Higher Education commission, Parties are left to bear their own costs.