This writ application has been filed to quash the impugned resolution of the Governing Body of the college dated 7.7.94, Annexure to the writ application, and to quash the show cause notice dated 16.7.94 issued by the Principal-Secretary of the Governing Body of Nagaon Law College. 2. As a matter of fact the resolution is Annexrue C and the notice dated 16.7.94 is Annexure B. But it has been wrongly shown in the prayer portion of the writ application. Annexure and C are quoted below: "Annexure B: Your are hereby asked to show cause within 7 days from the receipt of this notice as to why your service as wholetime teacher should not be terminated. A copy of the Gresolution dated 7.7.94 is enclosed herewith for your information." "Annexure C : Discuss the subject matter of the petition filed by Mrs. Deepa Saikia, as Mrs., Saikia was appointed as wholetime teacher for which she applied as per advertisement on 23.9.93 vide..... Assam Tribune dated 23.9.93 and during the interview, she was asked whether she is ready to give up her practice in the Bar to which she agreed and she was appointed as wholetime teacher accordingly. So there is no question of considering her application. The GB informed about her practice in Bar and she also personally admitted that she is still practising after joining as wholetime teacher, which is a clear and gross violation of terms and conditions of her service. It is decided that the Secretary, shall write to Mrs. Saikia to explain within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, why she should not be removed from her post of wholetime teacher. The next GB should be convened on 20th July, 1994." 3. The petitioner herein is a practising Advocate of Nagaon Bar Association. There was an advertisement dated 23.9.93 issued by the Principal-Secretary of the Governing Body of Nagaon Law College calling for application for filling up 2 posts of wholetime teacher in Nagaon Law College. The petitioner was appointed as a wholetime Lecturer. In the letter of appointment there is no terms and condition governing the service of the petitioner and it is urged that, order of appointment is subject to the right of the petitioner to practice the legal profession as Advocate, if so allowed, under the provisions of the Advocate Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. 4. In the letter of appointment there is no terms and condition governing the service of the petitioner and it is urged that, order of appointment is subject to the right of the petitioner to practice the legal profession as Advocate, if so allowed, under the provisions of the Advocate Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. 4. After joining, the petitioner informed the authority that she is practising as an Advocate. That finds place in paragraph 5 of the writ application. Thereafter, there was the resolution and the show cause notice as mentioned above. 5. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 42 (A) of the Advocate Act, 1961 has framed a set or Rules, namely, the Advocate (Right to take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979 which was published in the Gazette of India on 26.10.79. Rule 3 is quoted below : "(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule made, under the Act, an Advocate may, while practising, take up teaching of law in any educational institution which is affiliated to a University within the meaning of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), so long as the hours during which he is so engaged in the teaching of law do not exceed three hours oh a day. (2) When any Advocate is employed in any such educational institution for the teaching of law, such employment, shall if the hours during which he is engaged in the teaching of law do not exceed three hours, be deemed, for the purpose of the Act and the rules made thereunder, to be a part time employment irrespective of the manner in which such employment is described or the remuneration receivable (whether by way of a fixed amount or on the basis of any time scale of pay or in any other manner) by the Advocate for such employment." 6. A certificate was granted by the Principal of Nagaon Law College, which is Annexure to the writ application, that is quoted below : "To Whom it May Concern This is to certify that the duration of teaching hours, of Nagaon Law College is two hours only with three classes of 40 minutes each. The teaching hour starts at 4.30 PM and continues up to 6.30 PM." 7. The teaching hour starts at 4.30 PM and continues up to 6.30 PM." 7. In view of the clear Rule quoted above the petitioner is entitled to continue her practice in addition to her employment as a wholetime Lecturer in Nagaon Law College. The resolution as well as the show cause notice quoted above have curtailed the legal rights of the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid rule quoted above. The resolution quoted above speaks of some terms and conditions of her service. But nothing has been produced before me to show that these are the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner. The authority cannot create certain terms and conditions which are violative of the Rules framed by statutory body. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ application is allowed and the Annexure and C, the show cause notice and the resolution shall stand quashed. By virtue of the stay order passed by this Court, the petitioner is continuing in service and she shall be allowed to continue her service. 9. I have heard Shri BP Kataki, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri BK Goswanti, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. None appears for the other respondents. …………………