JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, C. J.—Petitioner claiming to be a Professor and Chairman, Department of History of respondent No. 1 University, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging constitutional and legal validity of appointments of respondents No. 2 to 16 as lecturers in the respondent-University and seeks writ of quo-warranto and prohibition against them 2. The petitioner submits that the University is a body corporate under the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act) and is governed by the provisions of the said Act, Statutes and Ordinances made thereunder. According to the petitioner, section 34 of the Act provides for a statutory Selection Committee for appointment of teachers in the University and the Executive Council can create teaching posts or make appointments to teaching posts only on the recommendations of this Committee as per Statute 11 (1) made under the Act. Referring to Ordinance 243 (b) (ii) made under the Act, it is submitted that no teaching and research posts can be created or abolished unless the Faculty concern takes a decision in that behalf and recommends the same to the Academic Council which in turn recommends the same to the Executive Council. It is further submitted that Ordinance No. 35 which concerns appointments to various teaching posts provides that appointment to a teaching post shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted by the competent authority and not otherwise. Ordinance 35.11 (b) further provides that whenever there is a vacancy to be filled by the direct recruitment, the same will be advertised not less than three weeks in advance in at least one leading daily newspaper clearly mentioning the eligibility qualifications and pay scale for the post. It is the case of the petitioner that these provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinance remain violated in case of appointments of respondents No. 2 to 16 and hence their appointments are void and liable to he quashed in public interest The petitioner also submits that respondents No. 4 to 15 were working as Research Associates in various departments of the University and were appointed as lecturers not by following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act, Statutes and Ordinance but by re-designating the posts of Research Associates as lecturers. This, according to the petitioner, could not be done as it violated the provisions of Ordinance 35 applicable in such cases. As regards the appointments of respondent No. 2, it is alleged that she is a relation of erstwhile Vice-Chancellor of the University, and has been made lecturer against a non-existing post without following the procedure prescribed in law. Her appointment as Research Associate is also said to be against the law and only for a temporary period. Her regularisation as a lecturer is said to be not only contrary to the aforesaid legal provisions but also otherwise air act of favouritism. As regards respondent No 3, the petitioner alleges that she is also related to an important Head of the Department of the University and has been given the appointment not only contrary to the aforesaid legal provisions but also in violation of the decisions of the Executive Council itself. It is alleged that the Executive Council of the University in its resolution dated 16-1-1986 decided to appoint only Research Associates as lecturers against regular vacant posts and treated the cadre as a vanishing cadre but this resolution was subsequently changed on 30th May, 1986 treating the "Evaluators" as "Research Associates" and giving them same benefits which were earlier given to Research Associates only. This change was made contrary to law and is an act of favouritism. Similarly, the appointment of respondent No 16 is challenged on the ground that he has been appointed as lecturer in Public Administration in P, G. Centre of the University whereas the post was advertised for H. P. University Evening College, which is an under-graduate institution. This appointment is said to be in the department which did not exist at the relevant time and is illegal. 3. The respondents have challenged the locus standi of the petitioner and have submitted that he is only interested in seeking publicity for himself and disturbing the working of the University. Respondents No. 4 to 15 have also specifically submitted that they were regularly appointed as Reaserch Associates and had been working since long. Since the said cadre of Research Associates was declared to be a vanishing cadre, it had become necessary for the respondent-University to consider their absorption in some suitable: posts. Respondents No. 4 to 15 have also specifically submitted that they were regularly appointed as Reaserch Associates and had been working since long. Since the said cadre of Research Associates was declared to be a vanishing cadre, it had become necessary for the respondent-University to consider their absorption in some suitable: posts. Since the qualifications for the post of a Research Associate are the same as that of lecturer, they were absorbed as lecturers after their selection by a statutory Selection Committee. This selection is said to be legal and justified Respondent No 2 has in her reply submitted that she was, by a resolution of the Executive Council dated 22-5-1985, appointed as a Research Associate in the department of History after the due selection by the Selection Committee and held the said post in accordance with law. A copy of the appointment order is filed as Anncxure R 2/2 Thereafter, she was selected for appointment as lecturer as the cadre of Research Associate was treated to be a wasted/ vanishing cadre. This is said to be in accordance with law relating to the appointments and is fully justified The reply of respondent No. 3 is that she was working as an Evaluator in the Directorate of Correspondence Course in the subject of Sociology and has been regularised as a lecturer because the cadre of Evaluator has been treated as a vanishing cadre. The reply of respondent No. 1, University, for the respondent No. 2 is that she was holding the post of Research Associate and since the said cadre was declared to be a vanishing cadre, she was appointed against a regular vacant post of lecturer in accordance with the decision of the University and selection by the Statutory Selection Committee As regards the respondent No. 3, it is submitted by the respondent-University that she was appointed an as Evaluator in the Directorate of the Correspondence Course in the subject of Sociology which was taught upto under-graduate level. There were few students at the under-graduate level in the said subject and, therefore, the services of this respondent were used for teaching postgraduate classes in Education through correspondence course and evaluating the assignment of the M. Ed students Since, she has necessary requisite educational qualification, she was appointed lecturer in Education and adjusted against a vacant post, This according to the respondent- University, is legal and justified. As regards respondent No 16f it is submitted that though the Evening College is under-graduate college and the post of lecturer was advertised in the said College, this respondent was appointed as lecturer in Public Administration in the University because the Inspecting team of the University Grants Commission assessed the development of the University and recommended opening of a Public Administration Department. Because of the aforesaid recommendation, this respondent was given appointment in the University on the basis of recommendation of the Executive Council It is, therefore, submitted that the appointments are legal and valid and do not justify interference by this Court. 4. Before considering the submissions of the parties on merits, the preliminary objection against the locus standi of the petitioner may first be considered 5. The petitioner is not directly affected by the appointments of respondents. He was not a candidate for the post of lecturer and could not have possibly any personal interest in the same. He claims to be a Professor in the University and further claims that he is interested in the working of the University in accordance with law. According to him, his request deserves to be granted in public interest. The petitioner has not specified the particular writ which he is praying for but reading the petition, as a whole, he appears to be praying for a writ of quo-wartanto against respondents 4 to 16. A writ of quo-warranto is a well established judicial remedy against an occupier or usurper of a substantive public office, franchise or liberty and requires such occupier or usurper to show by what authority he is in such office, franchise or liberty. In a petition for a writ of quo-warranto, the petitioner is not required to show that any right of his has been infringed. It is sufficient if he has some interest m the matter. In The University of Mysore v. C. D Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491, it was clarified that the quo-warranto proceedings afford a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty If the enquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office had no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo-warranto ousts him from that office. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo-warranto, he must satisfy the Court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. In Mrs. Priti Prabha Goel v. Dr. C P Singh and others, 1969 Lab IC 913, Rajasthan High Court has examined the powers of the High Court with regard to the appointment of a Professor of the Hindi Department of the University in violation of Statutory provisions and held that the writ of quo warranto can be issued by the High Court. Similarly, in Moti Ram v Union of India, AIR 1966 HP 25, it was held by this Court that it is not necessary for the petitioner to be personally interested in the matter nor it is necessary that the petitioner should seek to enforce some of his rights. The decision of this Court in Dr. H. R. Kalia v. H P. University, ILR (1977) HP 17 (para 55), is also the same. Under the circumstances, there would be no justification for the preliminary objection in the matter. The same is, therefore, rejected. 6. Before considering submissions of the parties on merits, it is necessary to ascertain relevant statutory provisions. Section 3 of the Act establishes and incorporates the University with the object to disseminate and advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding by teaching and research and by the example and influence of its corporate life (section 5), For the aforesaid purpose, the University under section 6 (6) has the power to create, teaching, administrative and other posts and make appointments thereto. This power of the University is exercised by the authorities of the University specified in section 18, i e the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Finance Committees and such other Boards and Committees as may be declared by the Statutes to be the authorities of the University. The Executive Council of the University is constituted under section 21 of the Act and is entitled to exercise powers and functions as may be prescribed by the Statutes. The Executive Council of the University is constituted under section 21 of the Act and is entitled to exercise powers and functions as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Similarly, the Academic Council is constituted under section 22 of the Act and has, subject to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances, the control and general regulation of standard and methods of instruction, evaluation, education, examination and research in the University. Its powers and functions are also prescribed by the Statutes. Sub-section (4) of Sec 22 specifically provides that the Academic Council shall have the power to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters. The faculties of the University ate specified under section 23 of the Act and their constitution and powers are prescribed by the Statute. As regards appointments of teachers and employees of the University, section 24 of the Act provides for selection committees for the purpose and lays down that the constitution, powers and functions of selection committees and the procedure to be followed in making appointments shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Statutes are made in relation to subjects stated in section 39 of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 38 thereof. Similarly, Ordinances are made on subjects specified in section 40 in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. 7. Statute No. 11 provides for powers of the Executive Council and as far as creation and appointments to teaching posts are concerned, sub- clause (i) thereof provides that the Executive Council shall have the powers "to create and appoint such Professors, Readers and Lecturers and other members of the teaching and Research staff, as may be necessary, on the recommendation of the selection committees constituted for the purpose and to provide for the filling up temporary vacancies therein". Clause (ii) of this Statute deals with the emoluments, duties and conditions of service of teaching and research staff and provides that "no action shall be taken by the Executive Council in respect of the number, the qualifications and the emoluments of teachers otherwise than after consideration of the recommendation of the Academic Council". (Underlining by us). 8. Clause (ii) of this Statute deals with the emoluments, duties and conditions of service of teaching and research staff and provides that "no action shall be taken by the Executive Council in respect of the number, the qualifications and the emoluments of teachers otherwise than after consideration of the recommendation of the Academic Council". (Underlining by us). 8. Ordinance 24 deals with the faculties and confers powers, duties and functions on them to make recommendation to the Academic Council which in turn shall made recommendations to the Executive Council regarding creation/abolition of teaching and research posts [24.3 (b) (ii)]. Ordinance 24.5 further provides that no matter affecting any Faculty shall be disposed of by the Academic Council or the Executive Council without its having been first referred to the concerned Faculty or Faculties for opinion and in case of doubt the Vice-Chancel for shall decide what matter shall be referred under this paragraph to any Faculty. 9. Ordinance 35 deals with appointments to various posts in the University. As far as teaching posts are concerned, they are treated as category. A posts, which are specified under Ordinance 35.53. This Ordinance though mentions post of lecturer, it does not mention posts of Research Associate or Evaluator. It also mentions the post of Directorate of Correspondence Courses, but does not provide for Evaluator or Research Associate under him. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the posts of Evaluator and Research Associate are not teaching posts. Ordinance 35.7 provides that the Executive Council shall be the competent authority for making appointments to these posts. Ordinance 35.11 provides for appointments to posts in various categories and specifies that appointment to teaching posts, if required to be made by direct recruitment shall be made by advertising the post not less than three weeks in advance in at least one leading Newspaper, advertisement clearly mentioning the eligibility qualifications and pay scale of the post. After receiving applications, pursuance to the advertisement as aforesaid, the Vice-Chancellor either himself or through a person or persons nominated by him, is required to screen applications in order to prepare a list of suitable candidates for consideration of the Selection Committee. After receiving applications, pursuance to the advertisement as aforesaid, the Vice-Chancellor either himself or through a person or persons nominated by him, is required to screen applications in order to prepare a list of suitable candidates for consideration of the Selection Committee. The list so prepared is placed before the Selection Committee by the Vice-Chancellor and may even include the names of persons, who may not have applied for the post but who, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, deserve to be included The Selection Committee is required to consider the academic record of the candidate, his research work, contribution to the advancement of the knowledge of the subject and his publications to assess his suitability for the post. Decision of the Selection Committee is taken by majority of votes, in case the Selection Committee is of the opinion that no candidate was suitable, the post may either be re-advertised or the Vice-Chancellor may be requested to suggest some other names. The Selection Committee is required to draw a panel of names of the selected candidates in order of merit, which panel remains in force for a period of one year and appointments are made from the panel strictly in order of merits. No ordinance has been brought to our notice dealing with promotion Under the circumstances even in a case of promotion the same will require consideration of tilt Selection Committee as aforesaid Since, post of Lecturer is the lowest teaching post shown in Ordinance 35 53 it is reasonable to infer that appoint went to the post of Lecturer would be made by direct recruitment These provisions would sufficiently indicate that though the Executive Council is the Executive Body of the University and is incharge of general administration thereof under section 21 of the Act, its powers are clearly defined under the Statutes and Ordinance made under the Act. It does not have over-riding power of any type except otherwise provided in the Statutes or Ordinance it is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the Executive Council is obliged to work within the aforesaid legal parametres and any deviation therefrom would make its action illegal and liable to be quashed. 10. Merits of the submissions of the parties may now be considered. 10. Merits of the submissions of the parties may now be considered. It is common ground that the matter of appointment to various posts, including teaching posts, is governed by Ordinance No. 35, which requires advertisement of posts in a local Newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates, consideration of those application by a regularly constituted Selection Committee aid consideration of the recommendation of the S-lection Committee by the Executive Council. It is also admitted that the procedure prescribed under Ordinance No. 35 has not been followed in making appointments of respondents No 2 to 16 It is farther admitted that there is no procedure in the Ordinance No. 35 or anywhere in the Statute or the Act providing for appointments by re-designating the posts of Research Associates and Evaluators as lecturers. Under the circumstances, if these appointments are examined in the context of above noted provisions of the Act, Statutes and the Ordinance No 35, they would be illegal and liable to be quashed. The Executive Council, as noticed earlier, does not have the power to either create a teaching post or make any appointment except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Similarly, the Executive Council could not abolish any teaching or research post except in accordance with Statute 24 3 (b) (ii) Even otherwise, the University being a body corporate under the Act, is bound to follow the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. The Constitutional guarantee of equality in the matter of appointment includes an opportunity to make application and to be considered on merits for the post for which the application has been made. In Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and others; AIR 1962 SC 602, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of this Article in the context of a ban imposed upon the petitioner to make application for appointment for employment in the Government and held that the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is not only to make an application for a post under the Government but includes the further right to be considered on merits for the post for which an application had been made. But the said right does not include the right to be actually appointed to the post for which an application has been made Clearly, therefore, the Article requires that before tiling a vacancy, the post should be advertised and all eligible candidates should be given an opportunity to make applications. Thereafter the applications should be considered and decided on merits. There is no dispute that this Article would also apply to the respondent-University Under the circumstances, there should be no difficulty in holding that the respondent-University has the constitutional obligation of advertising the posts, provide opportunity to all eligible candidates to submit their applications for being considered -for appointment against vacant posts- and thereafter be considered for appointment on merits. This procedure having not been followed, there is an apparent illegality in the matter. 11. The submission of the respondents, however, is that the Evaluators and Research Associates were declared by the Executive Council as a wasting cadre and, therefore, it became necessary for the respondents to be appointed against the vacant posts of lecturers, The question requiring consideration in such a factual context is as to why these cadres were declared wasting or dying cadres There is no explanation about it in the reply of the respondent-University. There is also nothing on record to indicate that Statutes and Ordinance providing for these posts in the University were amended. The legal authority of the resolution of the Executive Council declaring these posts as wasting or dying cadres is, therefore, doubtful. If this be construed as abolishing these posts, the same could not be done by the Executive Council in view of Statute 11 (1), which requires it to be done on the recommendations of Selection Committee Admittedly, the Selection Committee has not made any such recommendation, It also violates Ordinance No. 24.3 (b) (ii) as recommendations of the Faculty and the Academic Council were also necessary for this purpose. Then dying/vanishing cadres do not mean that persons holding posts in the cadre should be removed or forced to waste. The normal meaning of such an expression is that no fresh recruitment is made in the said cadre and persons holding posts in the cadre are permitted to hold their posts during their tenure. The cadre posts become extinct after the present incumbents vacate their office. The normal meaning of such an expression is that no fresh recruitment is made in the said cadre and persons holding posts in the cadre are permitted to hold their posts during their tenure. The cadre posts become extinct after the present incumbents vacate their office. Apparently, therefore, not only the declaration that the cadre of Research Associates and Evaluators as dying/wasting cadres but also the decision to absorb such persons as lecturers was illegal and unjustified. 12 As regards particular cases, Respondent No. 2 is admittedly the close relation of the then Vice-Chancel for of the University, Shri K. C. Malhotra, who has filed his affidavit in reply to the affidavit of respondent Dr. K P. Pandey and respondent Dr. S. S. Chauhan Her appointment letter (Annexure R-2/2) indicates that she was appointed as Research Associate temporarily till further orders pursuance to the resolution No. 59 of the Executive Council. A copy of the resolution is filed as Annexure R-2/1 and indicates that it was decided to appoint Dr (Miss) Abha Kapila as a Research Associate temporarily in the department of History Though the respondent No. 2 has been described as Dr. (Miss) Abha Kapila in these documents, she is really Dr Abha Malhotra, It does not appear that she was confirmed as Research Associate any time after her appointment on May 25, 1982 This fact becomes relevant because by a notification dated 7th January, 1984 (Annexure R-2/3), a posts of Research Associate had been created in several departments of the University, including the department of History It was, therefore, necessary to advertise these posts and make appointments against them in accordance with Ordinance No. 35. The same was admittedly not done. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to accept that this respondent was holding any post of Research Associate in the History Department of the University. Without filling the post created on 7-1-1984 by Annexure R-2/3, the Executive Council decided on 16-1-1986 to treat the cadre of Research Associates as wasting/vanishing cadre, which is somewhat surprising Then this resolution permitted continuance of those Research Associates, who were appointed against regular vacant posts of lecturers (para 2) or those appointed against posts created by the Executive Council (para 3). If this resolution was really to be implemented, the respondent No. 2 could not have continued as a Research Associate as she had not been appointed either against the vacant post of lecturer or against the regularly created post in the department. There is, therefore, sufficient justification for the allegation of the petitioner that the resolution of the Executive Council dated 16-1-1986 was suitably amended to facilitate absorption of this respondent as a lecturer. It appears that the benefit granted to Research Associates by this resolution was also claimed by Evaluators and the same provided formal justification for its modifications, which was notified vide Annexure R-2/5, This resolution dated 30 5-1986 required that all Evaluators and Research Associates be regularised in their existing designation post and scale with immediate effect This is a significant departure from earlier resolution and gives benefits even to those who were not appointed against any post or by following the procedure laid down by Ordinance No 35 The respondent No. 2 does not seem to have been regularised as Research Associate as per this resolution She seems to have been given the benefit of para 4 of this resolution, which provides that "Research Associates and Evaluators be designated as Lecturers". This resolution creates a new mode of appointment not recognised by the Act, Statute or Ordinances and is clearly outside the authority of the Executive Council. It is true that thereafter this respondent was required to appear in the interview before the Selection Committee and the said Committee recommended her for appointment as lecturer This s lection was not in accordance with Ordinance 35 and hence not sufficient to provide legitimacy to the appointment. The said appointment, in our opinion, is also not in terms of the resolutions of the Executive Council Annexures R-2/4 and R-2/5, and is otherwise violative of law and cannot, therefore, be accepted as legal and valid. The appointment of this respondent as lecturer of History (Annexure R-2/9) being illegal is hereby quashed 13. As regards respondent No. 3, she was, according to the respondent-University, appointed as an Evaluator in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses in the subject of Sociology and was to teach Sociology upto under-graduate level. The appointment of this respondent as lecturer of History (Annexure R-2/9) being illegal is hereby quashed 13. As regards respondent No. 3, she was, according to the respondent-University, appointed as an Evaluator in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses in the subject of Sociology and was to teach Sociology upto under-graduate level. It is the submission of the respondent-University that because of non-availability of under-graduate students she was required to teach post-graduate students and since she had the requisite qualifications, she was permitted to evaluate post graduate work. The affidavit of respondent No. 5, Dr K P Pandey, Director, Correspondence Course of the University discloses a sorry state of affairs. Dr. Pandey was admittedly a member of the Selection Committee appointed for the post of lecturers in Education He has stated in the affidavit that when respondent No, 3 appeared before the Selection Committee, the Committee refused to interview her and advised her to face the Selection Committee for Sociology because she had been an Evaluator in Sociology. Dr. Pandeys affidavit further mentions that she was not recommended as lecturer in Education. Even though she was not recommended as such, she was appointed as lecturer in Education There is, however, the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3, wherein the allegation that the Selection Committee refused to interview her is denied. She claims to have been interviewed. In the context of these allegations/it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 1-University to place before this court the original proceedings of Selection Committee for its perusal, which unfortunately has not been done Whatever be the truth, the fact remains that the respondent University has withheld the original record from the court and hence the only responsible inference that this court can draw is that if the record was produced, it would not have supported the University, Inspite of it, we would not attach much importance to these allegations and counter allegations and would not be influenced by them. The facts of the case unfortunately do not justify the appointment of respondent No. 3 as lecturer in Education. Even if it is assumed that she was qualified for such an appointment, she cannot be permitted to obtain entry through backdoor method, She was an Evaluator in Sociology and could not, on the basis of resolution of the Executive Council, be appointed as lecturer in Education. Even if it is assumed that she was qualified for such an appointment, she cannot be permitted to obtain entry through backdoor method, She was an Evaluator in Sociology and could not, on the basis of resolution of the Executive Council, be appointed as lecturer in Education. This is not a case of regularisation as claimed by the University but a case of appointment to an altogether new post in a different discipline. Appointment to such a post could not be made except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Ordinance No 35, i.e. by advertising the post, inviting applications from eligible candidates and thereby subjecting those applications to consideration on merits. Since, this has not been done, the appointment of respondent No 3 must also be held to be illegal and void. It is consequently quashed. 14. As regards appointment of respondent No. 16, it is admitted that the post advertised was the post in the Evening College, which is an undergraduate college. After having invited applications for a post in undergraduate college, the respondents could not have appointed this respondent in the post-graduate department of the University. The distinction between an under-graduate college and the post-graduate Department of the University is fairly well understood and should have been appreciated by the Executive Council. The recommendation of the visiting team of the University Grants Commission, would not, in our opinion, justify violation of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Constitutional guarantee. The said appointment must, therefore, be held to be illegal and quashed. 15. As regards appointments of respondents No: 4 to 15, there is no allegation of any favouritism or that they were not holding the posts of Research Associates in accordance with law. It is also not the allegation that they were not qualified to hold the post of lecturer. They have got the benefit of appointment as lecturer, because the posts of Research Associates were re-designated as lecturers and they were subsequently selected for the appointment by the Selection Committee. It is also not the allegation that they were not qualified to hold the post of lecturer. They have got the benefit of appointment as lecturer, because the posts of Research Associates were re-designated as lecturers and they were subsequently selected for the appointment by the Selection Committee. This court is of the opinion that these respondents are eminently qualified and suitable for appointment as lecturers Inspite of it, this court is of the opinion that their appointments through the process aforesaid are not in accordance with Ordinance No. 35 and are otherwise violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and for that reason cannot be accepted as legal and valid Since their appointment is not as an act of favouritism, following the decision of the supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 (1) SLR 544, this court would permit them to continue as such pending their selection in accordance with Ordinance No. 35. Under the circumstances, though this Court would quash the appointments of these respondents, it will direct that they be permitted to continue as lecturers and be further permitted to compete for regular appointments against these posts, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. The respondent-University will take necessary action in the matter within a period of six months from the date of this order. 16. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Appointment of respondents No. 2, 3 and 16 as lecturer is quashed and hence they will back to posts and status held by them before their appointment as lecturers. Appointment of respondents No. 4 to 15 as lecturer is declared illegal and void but they are permitted to continue as lecturers for a period of six months, pending their selection as per Ordinance No. 35. No costs.