JUDGMENT In the present writ application the grievance of the appointed as Lectures after following the due process and by virtue of the Syndicate’s decision dated 27.8.79 at Ferbisganj, where the joined on 10.9. 79 and later, on transfer to R.K. college, Madhubani on 7.3.80 and finally on transfer to M. R.M. College, Darbhanga on 1st January, 1982 and has been continuing therefore now more than 14 years, yet her case for regularisation has not been considered in the light of the Statute for regularization of the services of the purely temporary lecturer appointed on or before 28.2.82, approved by the Chancellor on 29.8.86 Accordingly, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to direct the University to consider her case for regularization in terms of the aforesaid Statute and pass appropriate order without any further delay. In the writ petition the petitioner challenged the validity of the appointment of respondent no.5 also, which may not be necessary now in view of the provisions of the aforementioned statute. 2. Mr. Azfar Hussain, learned counsel for the University submitted that the case of the petitioner for regularizing her services was considered in terms of the earlier Statute and as she had not fulfilled the required criteria of twenty four months of service as on 31.12.81, her case was rejected. It was thus submitted by him that the Selection Committee did not find the petitioner suitable for absorption in the post held by her. 3. Various other contentions have also been made by the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5, which I do not wish to deal here, because I am of the view that in view of the aforementioned Statute of 1986 the University should have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the criteria fixed therein. As undisputedly the petitioner was a lecturer in the service of M.R.M. College, Darbhanga, which is constituent unit in the L.N.M. University since before 28.2.82 and has been continuing till date. In the letter of the University contained in annexure 14 it is admitted that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions as she possesee more than 55.5 percent marks at the M.A. Examination and is working in the sanctioned post and has also completed one year of continuous service on 31.12.81. 4. In the letter of the University contained in annexure 14 it is admitted that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions as she possesee more than 55.5 percent marks at the M.A. Examination and is working in the sanctioned post and has also completed one year of continuous service on 31.12.81. 4. In the said circumstances, In do net find any reason to delay the petitioner regularization of her services in terms of 1986 Statute. The learned Counsel for the University however, points out that the petitioner has been continuing order passed by this Court and as such, her case may not be covered under 1986 Statue. In my opinion, the said submission of the learned Counsel for the University is wholly misconceiver. Under the Statute the case of purely temporary lecturer who is in service of the college admitted to it as a lectures of the college admitted to it as a lecturer has to be considered if he or she has been appointed in the service of the University or college concerned on temporary basis on or before 28.2.82 and has been since then continuing in the service of the University College. As such, under the said statute the only requirement in that he/she must be continuing in the service since on or before 28th February. 82 and it done no differentiate between the person continuing in service under the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise. In the present case the fact remains that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer before 28.2.82 and undisputedly has been continuing in service since then till date. She possessee second class M.A. in the subject. Thus, in my opinion, her case is squarely covered by the provision of the Statute. In any view of the matter, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the equity also demands that the service of the petitioner should be regularized as admittedly she has been in continuous service for over 15 years and also possessed, the required qualification. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the respondent University is directed to issue the required order/notification regularizing the service of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this orders, if necessary by getting all the formalities completed. Petition allowed.