JUDGMENT This is also one-minute matter like the one just we have disposed of. Indeed, section 1 (5) of the M.P. Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya, Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 is complete answer to respondents' case. In the return at para 4 the admitted position on facts is clear. Respondents admit that "the period of service of the petitioner as a Lecturer or Assistant professor was only 8 years 9 months 4 days at the time of alleged promotion." It is contended that it is less than 12 years hence his promotion was not approved by the respondent-Ayog. Annexure P-14 is the impugned order setting out the requirement of 12 years teaching experience of which five years should be have been earned in the course of teaching post-graduate students. The question is, if that requirement, insisted as per Annexure P-14, is valid and approval was validly refused. In the Adhiniyam the Schedule I, Item No. 1-B sets out minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the posts of non- Government College Professors. It is not disputed that the petitioner is employed in such a non-Government college and the Adhiniyam applied to him. Sub-clause (c) contemplates, "the experience of teaching of Post-Graduate classes shall be atleast 5 years and atleast 3 years experience of guiding research." The only ground on which the petitioner's promotion is not approved is that he ought to have earned 12 years teaching experience and not 5 years or even not 8 years or so as admitted in the return. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Ayogsubmitted that the "College-Code" framed under Statute 28 of the Jiwaji University is the source of the order, Annexure P-14. Unfortuntely, that source has no force because that is nullified by section 1(5) of the Adhiniyam, contemplating "an institution to which this Act applied under sub-section (4) shall, with respect to matters provided for in this Act be governed by the provisions of this Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or document or in any other enactment for the time being in force." For all the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that wrongly the petitioner's entitlement for promption has been denied on the basis of Annexure P-14. We accordingly direct that the proposal for approval submitted as per annexure P-14 by Principal of the College shall be accorded approval. We accordingly direct that the proposal for approval submitted as per annexure P-14 by Principal of the College shall be accorded approval. Indeed, in that proposal the Principal reported that the petitioner had earned an experience of teaching for 14 years in post-graduate classes and that he had also experience of research work for four years besides publishing eight research-papers. Obviously, on an erroneous premises entitlement to promotion being denied the error in that regard must be rectified by the respondent-Ayog. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of directions aforesaid. Out-standing amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to petitioner.