ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a Research Associate, posted at College of Agriculture, Gwalior, a constituent college of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner by way of regularisation on the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 3-1-1988 and also to pay the petitioner arrears of emoluments consisting of difference between those payable to the Research Associate and those to an Assistant Professor with effect from 25-4-1985, the date of appointment of the petitioner. 2. In the year 1984 the respondents advertised certain posts of Research Associates and Assistant Professors. The petitioner applied for appointment as Research Associate. He was so appointed vide order dated 9-4-1985 (Annexure-P/3) on a consolidated stipendiary allowance of Rs. 1250/- per month against the post of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist and posted at the College of Agriculture at Gwalior. On 5-9-1987 the respondents invited applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors and Junior Scientists in different faculties. The petitioner also applied for the same. However, he was not called for the interview which was fixed for 3-1-1989. He approached the respondents and made several representations complaining against his exclusion from interview but the representations made by the petitioner did not bring out any result. 3. According to the petitioner, though appointed as Research Associate, he was in reality appointed against the post of an Assistant Professor and teaching duties were also assigned to him and inasmuch as he was in fact working against the post of Assistant Professor, also discharging the duties attaching with the post of Assistant Professor, he was entitled to be regularised as Assistant Professor; and in any case he was entitled to the same emoluments as were payable to Assistant Professors. In the year 1985 the minimum of pay-scale of Assistant Professor was Rs. 1800/- which was revised to Rs. 2200/- in January, 1986. In any case the respondents were not justified in refusing to call the petitioner for interview held on 3-1-1989. In the year 1985 the minimum of pay-scale of Assistant Professor was Rs. 1800/- which was revised to Rs. 2200/- in January, 1986. In any case the respondents were not justified in refusing to call the petitioner for interview held on 3-1-1989. In the background of these facts and averments, the petitioner claims regularization on the post of Assistant Professor, release of emoluments attaching with the post of Assistant Professor and appointment as Assistant Professor at least with effect from 3-1-1989, the date on which he was unjustifiably excluded from interview though fully qualified and eligible. 4. The case of the respondents, as set out in the return, is that the petitioner was appointed a Research Associate which carrieda merely stipendiary status and could not be termed a cadre or tenure post. Several statutes issued under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, lay down qualifications determining eligibility for various teaching posts including that of the Assistant Professor. Procedure and mode of appointment is also laid down. All these being statutory, are incapable of being relaxed. The petitioner had neither applied for the post of Assistant Professor nor was he appointed as such. He had sought for appointment on the post of Research Associate, which was given to him though for fiscal purposes the amount of stipend paid to the petitioner was drawn against the vacant lying post of Assistant Professor. No teaching work was taken from the petitioner and even if the petitioner had casually done anything amounting to teaching work that did not mean that the petitioner was performing teaching job expected of an Assistant Professor. In the year 1988-89 the petitioner did apply for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor but he was lacking in essential eligibility qualifications and as such the Screening Committee constituted in terms of statute 6(b) having scrutinized the case of the petitioner did not approve him for being called for interview. 5. The return of the respondents having been filed, the petitioner came out with a rejoinder, pleading that there were several other incumbents appointed as Research Associates and then given ad hoc appointments and subsequently regularized on the post of Assistant Professor. According to the petitioner, he has been dealt with hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. According to the petitioner, he has been dealt with hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Additional return was filed on behalf of the respondents submitting that such of the incumbents as were given ad hoc appointments were so given in the exigencies of service and inasmuch as they were fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Assistant Professors, they were given such appointments after their cases having been scrutinized by the Screening Committee. The petitioner's case being clearly distinguishable from the cases of such other appointments, the charge of hostile discrimination was unfounded and baseless. 7. There is no manner of doubt that to begin with the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Research Assistant and he was given that appointment. It is also clear from the letter of appointment that the appointment was given to the petitioner in an stipendiary status. The petitioner was not appointed in any cadre post and certainly not as an Assistant Professor. ft is also not disputed that on the date of his appointment as Research Associate he was not possessed of the essential qualifications which were pre-requisites to the seeking of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. 8. The petitioner has not filed any documents nor has brought any material on record enabling this Court to hold that ever since the date of his appointment as Research Associate he was regularly performing the duties attaching with the post of Assistant Professor. With the rejoinder, the petitioner has filed documents marked Annexures-P/23 to P/ 33. The documents Annexures P/27 to P/30 show that the Dean, College of Agriculture, Gwalior had assigned the petitioner duties either as internal or external examiner at the examination conducted by the College. The documents Annexures-P/23 to P/26 go to show that in certain semesters the petitioner was also assigned duties at the instance of the Dean, College of Agriculture, Gwalior of taking a few lectures. The documents Annexures-P/23 to P/26 go to show that in certain semesters the petitioner was also assigned duties at the instance of the Dean, College of Agriculture, Gwalior of taking a few lectures. Merely because the petitioner being a Research Associate, was allowed to associate himself at the behest of the Dean with the examinations conducted by the College and to deliver a few lectures, and was paid or not remuneration for such duties discharged by him, it would not mean that the petitioner was throughout performing the duties attaching with the post of Assistant Professor so as to claim either appointment by regularisation on the post or the emoluments payable to the Assistant Professors regularly discharging such duties. In AIR 1991 SC 1145 , Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India and Ors., their Lordships have held an officer substantively holding one post merely allowed to hold charge of another post or allowed at times to discharge duties attaching with such other post, cannot have any rights, equities or expectations built upon it. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 1992 SC 2130 , State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and others. We have considered the law laid down therein but we do not find anything to support the petitioner. Their Lordships have condemned ad hocism but at the same time not approved of regularization without regard to all relevant considerations. Certainly their Lordships have not said anyone being regularised though not qualified and though a vacancy may not exist. 10. On 9-4-1985 when the petitioner was appointed on the post of Research Associate, he might or not have possessed the educational qualifica- tions which were then prescribed by the University to be eligible for appointment on the post of an Assistant Professor. However, with effect from 27-8-1987 (vide Annexure R/3) the academic council of the University had revised the basic qualifications required of an Assistant Professor making compulsory the Master's Degree in Veterinary Science or Animal Science majoring in Animal Production and Management. The petitioner did not hold this qualification when the vacancies arose in the year 1987 and the posts were advertised on 5-9-1987. It cannot be disputed, nor has it been, that the academic council is competent to revise the prescription of qualifications for any post. The petitioner did not hold this qualification when the vacancies arose in the year 1987 and the posts were advertised on 5-9-1987. It cannot be disputed, nor has it been, that the academic council is competent to revise the prescription of qualifications for any post. This Court would not interfere with the decision of experts in the field of education so as to substitute its own wisdom in place of educational experts determining the qualifications which must be required to be fulfilled by anyone seeking appointment on a particular teaching job. This Court would not also direct appointment of a person on a post which he is not entitled to hold on account of lacking the requisite eligibility qualifications. The petitioner claims to have acquired the necessary educational qualification but that is at a point of time much later (after the year 1989) when the posts were already filled. Since 1989 there has been no vacancy and certainly not anyone advertised by the respondents. 11. On 27-8-1989, applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist (Animal Production and Management) were invited. The advertisement has been placed on record by the respondents marked Annexure R/3. The petitioner has filed document Annexure P/2 issued by the University of Allahabad dated 13-9-1983 containing transcript of academic record of the petitioner. We have carefully considered the qualifications laid down in the advertisement and the academic achievements of the petitioner. As stated in para 17 of the return, duly supported by affidavit, the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in pursuance of the provisions of Statute 6(b) had scrutinized the case of the petitioner, and refused to call him for interview for his lacking in essential eligibility as he was not having degree in Veterinary Science. The petitioner did not also possess post-graduate degree in the subject of Animal Production and Management. We have also examined the proceedings dated 21-5-1986 of the Committee. The confidential record of the proceedings was made available for our perusal. We cannot find any fault with the proceedings of the Committee and the finding recorded by it. It cannot be said that the petitioner was wrongfully excluded from being called for the interivew. 12. Last remains the case of hostile discrimination to be examined. The confidential record of the proceedings was made available for our perusal. We cannot find any fault with the proceedings of the Committee and the finding recorded by it. It cannot be said that the petitioner was wrongfully excluded from being called for the interivew. 12. Last remains the case of hostile discrimination to be examined. The petitioner has utterly failed in proving that anyone, similarly qualified as the petitioner is or was, given adhoc appointment on the post of Assistant Professor and then regularised. On the contrary, we have examined the academic records of the cases of such persons as are alleged by the petitioner to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, eight in number. We have also examined the scrutiny reports of such persons made by the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor under the Statute 6(b) abovesaid. We do not find a single comparable case with which the petitioner may claim equivalence and then justify his charge of hostile discrimination. 13. In support of the view taken by us, we may refer to a few decisions of the Supreme Court. 14(a). In Union of India v. L. Dutta, AIR 1991 SC 363 , their Lordships have discouraged the courts from interfering with change in policy relating to promotion chances when considerations of technical or scientific nature are involved, as the present case is. 14(b). In Grin Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1173 , their Lordships have held that to be entitled to 'equal pay for equal work' there must be a reasonable similarity in (i) nature of work, (ii) performance of duties, (iii) qualifications and (iv) quality of work performed. So is the law laid down in N. P. S. NPC Teachers' Association v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 369 . 15. The petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case which may withstand the touchstone of the law so laid down by the Supreme Court. He has certainly not been able to lay foundation for regularisation in the cadre post of Assistant Professor though appointed and performing duties on stipendiary and ex-cadre post of Research Associate. When he. 15. The petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case which may withstand the touchstone of the law so laid down by the Supreme Court. He has certainly not been able to lay foundation for regularisation in the cadre post of Assistant Professor though appointed and performing duties on stipendiary and ex-cadre post of Research Associate. When he. was pressing his such claim he was told by the respondents on 21 -5-1989 (vide AnnexureR/3) that he should apply for the post of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist when advertised and that the Vishwavidyalaya was not committed to select and appoint him on any post; the Vishwavidyalaya had no objection to his seeking job elsewhere. 16. The petitioner thus, fails on all the grounds raised by him. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 14-101988 rendered at the main seat in M. P. No. 1018/88, S. K. Malviya and Ors. v. J.N.K.V. and Ors.. The petitioners therein were all M.Sc. (Ag.) First Class, having research experience of two years each claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Professor by regularisation. This Court held as under :- "The petitioners also submitted that they are all M. Sc. (Ag.) First Class and have put in more than two years as research associates. At the time of their recruitment, they were assured of being regularized and recruited to the posts of Assistant Professor which is sought to be annulled/curtailed by throwing the posts open to candidates from outside. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring to our notice any such document which gave rise to an inference of assurance sought to be spelled out by the petitioners. True that any documents, Annexures S to D, the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor of the University have mentioned cases of the research associates like the petitioners as eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor. But, in none of these documents, it is found that posts of Assistant Professors would be made available to the petitioners first. Even if there would have been any such assurance, that would have been contrary to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Regulations prescribing the procedure for selection for appointment to posts of teachers of the University. The petitioners were ill-advised to rush to this Court without awaiting results of the interview by the Selection Committee." 18. Even if there would have been any such assurance, that would have been contrary to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Regulations prescribing the procedure for selection for appointment to posts of teachers of the University. The petitioners were ill-advised to rush to this Court without awaiting results of the interview by the Selection Committee." 18. It is also stated by the respondents in the return that since 1989 there has been no vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Professors where against the petitioner may be accommodated. The respondents have further stated that as and when the vacancies may occur the petitioner would be at liberty to make application and seek appointment if fulfilling the requisite qualification laid down for the post by the academic council consistently with the Statutes. We do hope that the respondents would sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Professor, no sooner a vacancy may arise, giving due weightage to his having been associated with the respondents ever since 3-1-1988. He has been stagnating on a stipendiary post. Stagnation causes frustration and by this time the chances of the petitioner seeking employment elsewhere, if not over, are certainly rendered bleak. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we find the petitioner not entitled to any relief. The petition is held without any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly, though without any order as. to the costs. The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.