This writ petition has been filed by Sri Mahipal Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following reliefs : (i) A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing opposite parties to adjust the petitioner as lecturer of Geography in a College in the State wherever vacancy exists or may exist in future. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 3 (U. P. Higher Education Service Commission) to send his name for being considered under Section 31 (c) (iii) of the Higher Education Service Commission Act (for short act ). 2. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency at this writ petition an application dated 14-12- 1994 has been proved praying that the writ petition may be permitted to be amended so as to add some facts and reliefs detailed in Paragraph 5 of the said application. 3. In this regard it may be mentioned that the aforesaid amendment was necessitated because of the pleadings set-up by the opposite party in the counter-affidavit. For ready reference the entire paragraph 5 of the said application may be relevant and, therefore, is quoted here : , " (5) That as the order of cancellation of the adjustment of the petitioner is the Meerut College, Meerut has been passed during the pendency of the above noted petition, it is necessary that the following amendment in the petition be permitted to be made, by adding the following paragraph, grounds and prayer : (17) That the director has misrepresented the case of the petitioner to the State and got the appointment order of the petitioner can celled. (18) That the order of cancellation has been passed by State Govern ment without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to bring correct facts to its knowledge. " 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this amendment is to be allowed. 5. Consequently, the additional prayer in this writ petition will be that the order of cancellation passed by the State Government without affording any opportunity to the petitioner may be quashed. 6. This writ petition was filed originally on 17-1-1992. It was directed that counter-affidavit may be filed within four weeks and the rejoinder affi davit may be filed within one week. 6. This writ petition was filed originally on 17-1-1992. It was directed that counter-affidavit may be filed within four weeks and the rejoinder affi davit may be filed within one week. Thereafter various orders were passed and ultimately counter-affidavit on behalf of State of U. P. , Directorate of Education concerned and the U. P. Higher Education Commission have been filed. Dr. R. Dwivedi assisted by Sri V. S. Dwivedi on behalf of petitioner and Sri V. B. Singh assisted by Sri P. S. Baghel on behalf of U. P. Higher Education Commission and Shri D. R. Choudhary learned counsel for the State and Education Directorate concerned have been heard at length. It may be mentioned here that three counter-affidavits have been filed which were again supported by two supplementary counter-affidavits to which suitable replies have been given through equal number of rejoinder-affidavits. The matter being ripe for hearing is being decided fin ally at the admission stage as approv ed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The primary question in this case is as to whether petitioner Mahipal Singh is, on the facts of the present case, entitled to get benefit of Section 31 (C) (3) of the Act. Section 3 1 (C) was admittedly brought into effect by U. P. Act No. 2 of 1992. Prior to this Act an Ordinance has come into existence which stood repealed by this Amending Act. The Ordinance has come into force on 22-11-91. There is no change whatsoever in the provisions in the Ordinance and the aforesaid Amending Act. 8. The petitioner did his M. A. in Geography and also obtained a degree in Ph. D. in the said subject. In the State of U. P. vacancies in degree colleges are filled in by process of selection done under the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. In accordance with the provisions of the said Act the vacancies are intimated to the said Commission which in turn advertise those vacancies and then selects candidates and recommends their names to the State Government or to the College concerned for appointment, as the case may be. 9. Admittedly, the Commission advertised post of lecturer in Geog raphy In four colleges. The said advertisement appeared in the year 1986 for which interviews were hold in the year 1987. 10. 9. Admittedly, the Commission advertised post of lecturer in Geog raphy In four colleges. The said advertisement appeared in the year 1986 for which interviews were hold in the year 1987. 10. Again admittedly, the petitioner was duly selected by the Commis sion and was offered the appointment in the leave-vacancy in a college situated in Maunath Bhanjan then district Azamgarh. The petitioner had however joined another leave vacancy post in another college namely Amar Singh College, Lakhawati district Bulandshahr. On the offer of the Com mission the petitioner wrote that since he was already working in one leave-vacancy it will not be possible nor desirable for him to go for another appoint ment in similar leave vacancy. It is not denied that this information was duly sent to the Commission. However, an attempt was made to show that this letter was not sent to the Director but on a fuller consideration of the entire material it appears that all the patties were duly informed that the petitioner did not choose to join at the leave vacancy offered by the Commis sion because of the reason that he was already working in a leave vacancy in Inter College, that similarly the petitioner insisted in his letter that since he has applied against the vacancies for regular appointment, he may be extended such an appointment if and when available. 11. It is again admitted that the petitioner continued in the leave vacancy in the said college in district Bulandshahr till 1992. As noted above, the aforesaid Amending Ordinance which became Amending Act No. 2 of 1992 came into force on 22nd November, 1991. 12. 11. It is again admitted that the petitioner continued in the leave vacancy in the said college in district Bulandshahr till 1992. As noted above, the aforesaid Amending Ordinance which became Amending Act No. 2 of 1992 came into force on 22nd November, 1991. 12. At this stage, the entire Section 31 (C) as was added by the afore said amendment Act may be usefully quoted here : "31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointment.- (I) Any teacher, other than a principal who- (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3, 1984 but not later than June 30, 1991 on a post- (i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier, or (ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its falling vacant, permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; Or (iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been continuously serving the college from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of Uttar Act, 199?,-8 Education Service Commission (Amendment) (b) was so appointed after three months of the notification the Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before Us commission by the Act referred to in clause (a), or if anointed within such period, no recommendation was made by the com mission within such period; (c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant statutes in force on the date of such appointment ; (d) is not related to any member of the management or the principal of the college concerned in the manner mentioned in the explanation to Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh 1973 : (e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted under sub- section (2) ; may be given substantive appointment by the management of the college if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (a ). (2) The Selection Committee consisting, the following member namely,- (i) a member of the Commission nominated by the Government who shall be the Chairman ; (ii) an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Higher Education Department; (iii) the Director ; shall consider the cases of every such ad hoc teacher and on being satisfied about his eligibility in view of the provisions of sub-section (I), and his work and conduct on the basis of his record, recommend his name to the manage ment of the college for appointment under sub-section (1 ). (3) Where a person recommended by the Commission under Section 13 before the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-section (1) does not get an appointment because of the appointment of another person under sub-section (1) in the vacancy for which he was so recommended, the State Government shall make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy in any college and the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Sec tion 13 and Section 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply. (4) A teacher appointed on ad hoc basis referred to in sub-section (1) who does not get a substantive appointment under that sub-section and a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall cease to hold the ad hoc appointment after (June 30, 1992 ). 13. It may be repeated that the petitioner claims benefit of sub-section (3) quoted above. It is not under challenge that in view of the dates of selec tion and offer of employment mentioned in the petition the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit extendable by the aforesaid sub-section. But the objection and contest on behalf of the opposite parties is that because the petitioner did not accept the offer extended by the Commission and continued to work in a college which was not offered by the Commission, hence he can not in law claim the benefit extendable by the aforesaid sub-section (3 ). The argument proceeds that had the petitioner joined the leave-vacancy-post offered to him, he could have claimed those benefits. For a variety of reasons, this argument is to be repelled. 14. The argument proceeds that had the petitioner joined the leave-vacancy-post offered to him, he could have claimed those benefits. For a variety of reasons, this argument is to be repelled. 14. It is admitted case that the petitioner had been selected by the Commission and was offered the leave vacancy appointment. The petitioner duly intimated that since he was working in a similar post he should be offered a permanent post when vacant. It follows that had the stand of the petitioner been illogical and against law, the matter should have come to an end and the State Government would not have recommended to offer an appointment to the petitioner within the aforesaid Section 31 (C) (3 ). It is however, admitted that the State Government had written a letter dated 11-8-1992 to the Director of Education recommending a total number of 25 candidates under Section 31 (C) (3) for appointment in the colleges mentioned against their names. A true copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure-SA-l to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 24-8-93. In view of the contents of the said annexure it is proved beyond all doubts that the petitioner was taken to have been fully covered within the meaning of sub section (3) and therefore, the Government on the basis of the earlier recom mendation by the Commission, had directed that he should be appointed in Meerut College, Meerut. In the face of this decision of the State, none of the opposite parties could deny the appointment to the petitioner. There was neither any legal nor factual basis for the State to modify the order by which the petitioner had already been extended the benefit under Section 31 (C) (3 ). But stranegely enough, the State wrote another letter on 23-9-1994 telling the Directorate that the recommendation for petitioners appointment in Meerut College as made and conveyed through letter dated 11-8-1992, was thereby reversed and the aforesaid letter dated 11-8-1992 should be taken as modified to the extent that the petitioners name against serial No. 25 should be deleted. 15. It may be mentioned that this writ petition was already being heard and the affidavits had been exchanged when this letter dated 23-9-1994 allegedly came into existence. To say the least, this letter is borns out of no exigency. 15. It may be mentioned that this writ petition was already being heard and the affidavits had been exchanged when this letter dated 23-9-1994 allegedly came into existence. To say the least, this letter is borns out of no exigency. It must be rejected outright as an attempt to forestal a right that has vested in the petitioner. However, the said letter does not indicate any reason why the order dated 11-8-1992 was being rescinded on 23-9-1994. The argument of the opposite parties that since the petitioner had refused the offer of appointment on leave vacancy, the subsequent amendment order was valid, has already been noticed and the said reason is not available to the opposite parties to deny appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner was fully justified in demanding a full-fledged appointment and not join at the leave-vacancy because he was working at a leave-vacancy post. 16. The amendment application moved in this petition having been allowed, it appears desirable to observe that the aforesaid order dated 23-9-1994 could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A right has accrued to him through the letter dated 11-8-1992 and that too was based on his having been selected by the Commission and, therefore, he had matured his right under sub-section (3) of Section 31 (C) of the Act. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 23-9- 1994 is quashed. The opposite parties are commanded to offer the post at Meerut College, Mecrat to the petitioner and implement the order dated 11-8-1992 failing which he may be absorbed in any other college in the State in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 (C) (3) forthwith, not later than three months. 18. The parties will bear their costs. Petition allowed. .