D. K. SETH, J, J. The petitioner, an As sistant Professor in the Department of Farm and Machinery and Power Engineering Col lege of Technology in the G. B. Pant Univer sity of Agriculture and Technology was placed at SI. No. 2 in the Penal of selected candidate for the post of Senior Research Officer by the Selection Committee con stituted under Chapter XIII, Rule 4 (d) of the University Statutes. Sri M. P. Singh who was selected as SI. No. 1 having been offered appointment had joined the post. Against the lien vacancy of Dr. T. N. Misra, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment in the post of Senior Research Officer by a letter dated 31st January, 1987 (Annexure-1 ). The said ad-hoc appointment was ex tended from time to time by letters dated 7th August, 1987,28th December, 1987 and 29th/30th August, 1988 (Annexures 2, 3 and 4 ). The appointment of Dr. T. N. Misra on adhoc basis in the post of Senior Agricul ture Engineer Bio-gas having been regularised with effect from 28th Decem ber, 1987, a regular vacancy in the post of Senior Research Officer, the post held by Dr. T. N. Misra, had occurred. The petitioner claims regularisation of his ad hoc appoint ment in the post of Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987. The petitioner further claimed that the petitioner was still working as Senior Re search Officer even after December 1988. It is alleged that by letter dated 28th July, 1989 (Annexure-6) the petitioner was informed that the management decided not to extend the petitioners appointment as Senior Re search Officer. The post is still vacant and no selection had been made. Therefore, the petitioners appointment should be regularised on the post of Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987. Therefore, he had prayed for a man damus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioners appointment as Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987 and to continue the petitioners service as Senior Research Of ficer and pay all salaries and allowances accordingly. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University, it has been contended that the petitioner was allowed senior scale of pay in the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 1st January, 1986 on account of this qualifying the criteria for senior scale. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University, it has been contended that the petitioner was allowed senior scale of pay in the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 1st January, 1986 on account of this qualifying the criteria for senior scale. That one post of Senior Research Officer, having fallen vacant, was advertised for selection to be made by the Selection Committee both statute under the Statute. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of four candidates according to merit. The petitioner name figured in SI. No. 2 in the said panel; The Committee had recommended the ap pointment of the petitioner at SI. No. 2 in the event of the person recommended at SI. No. 1 does not join. The candidate in SI. No. 1 having joined, the panel stood lapsed. Dr. T. N. Misra was given ad hoc appointment in lien vacancy of Dr. R. N. Singh. The petitioner was given appointment in the resultant lien vacancy of Dr. T. N. Misra for a period of six months on ad hoc basis accord ing to the terms and condition contained in the said letter of appointment stipulating that the petitioner would be reverted to the post of Assistant Professor as soon Sri T. N. Misra is reverted to the post of Senior Re search Officer. Clause 6 of the appointment letter clearly lays down that for regular ap pointment, the petitioner would have to ap pear in the interview for selection. It is the Board of Management which give the ap pointment. In the present case, the appoint ment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis and its extension were approved by the Board of Management. According to the University, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor since after the ad hoc appoint ment came to an end by reason of non-ex tension and he had been discharging his duty in his substantive post of Assistant Professor since after 27th December, 1988 after which the said ad hoc appointment was never extended. No appointment can be made contrary to the regulations provided under Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the University which contemplates filing up of posts on regular basis only after due adver tisement in National Daily and after the candidate has been found suitable and recommended by the Selection Committee constituted therefor. Therefore, according to the University, the petitioner has no claim. 3. Therefore, according to the University, the petitioner has no claim. 3. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated his case on the same facts that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised and that the decision of the Board of Management did not contain any reason and, therefore, its action was ar bitrary. 4. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after summarising the facts, advanced three fold submissions. He contends that the petitioner having been selected and given appointment on ad hoc basis which was extended continuously for some time, it was incumbent upon the University Authority to regularise his ap pointment on account of his eligibility be cause of the reason of his placement at SI. No. 2 in the panel. Alternatively, according to him, the petitioner having been selected for the post and placed at SI. No. 2 in the ad hoc appointment is to be made from the panel itself being the next in position until a regularly selected candidate joins. Lastly he contends that since no regular selection has been made, he is entitled to continue in the post of Senior Research Officer till a regular selection is made. 5. Mr. Kacker, learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners service could not be regularised. Inasmuch as according to him, there is no scope for regularisation of ad hoc appointment in the post which can only be filled up through selection as provided in Chapterxiii of the Statute. The selection of the petitioner having been made in respect of only one vacancy which was advertised and the candidate in SI. No. 1 above the petitioner having been appointed, the panel had lost its force because the petitioner had been recommended for appointment only in the event the candidate in SI. No. 1 does not join. The appointment of the petitioner clearly stipulated that the same was ad hoc for a period of six months. Under the Statutes, no ad hoc appointment could ex tend beyond six months and that the ques tion of regularisation having been made subject to interview even in the letter of adhoc appointment which the petitioner had accepted, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation. Under the Statutes, no ad hoc appointment could ex tend beyond six months and that the ques tion of regularisation having been made subject to interview even in the letter of adhoc appointment which the petitioner had accepted, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation. He contends further that since afrer27th December, 1988, the petitioner-is not discharging the function of Senior Research Officer, therefore, he can not claim any benefit of continuous service or otherwise. 6. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, con tends, relying on the decision in the case of Hemanshit Kumar Chaturvedi v. University of Gorakhpur through its Registrar and others, 1993 (2) SCC 49 that the petitioner having been appointed in a lien vacancy which resulted into a regular vacancy on 23rd December, 1987, the petitioner is en titled to regularisation because of his con tinuation on account of ad hoc appointment purrsuant to the petitioners placement at SI. o. 2 in the list of selected candidates ac cording to Chapter XIII of the Statutes. According to him, alternatively, even if the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation, he is entitled to continue his ad hoc appoint ment until the post is regularly filled. Rely ing on the judgment in the case of Kar-nataka State Private College Stop-gap Lec turers Association v. State of Kamataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 677 , Mr. Khare con tends that on the guidelines as laid down in the form of direction by the Supreme Court, the petitioners temporary appointment should be continued till the purpose for which he has been appointed exhausts or if it is in waiting of regular selection, then till such selection is made. Any delay in filling up the vacancy would not entitled the Management to terminate the petitioners ad hoc appointment except for adequate reasons. The contends further that the prin ciple laid down in the case of Kamataka State Private College Stop-gap-Lecturers As sociation (supra) has been re-affirmed in the case of Basemddin M. Madari v. State of Kamataka and others, 1995 (Supp) SCC 111. 7. Admittedly the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2 in the selection made by the Committee according to the regula tions contained in Chapter XIII of the University Statutes in June 1986. It is not disputed that the said selection was made in respect of one vacancy which was so adver tised. 7. Admittedly the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2 in the selection made by the Committee according to the regula tions contained in Chapter XIII of the University Statutes in June 1986. It is not disputed that the said selection was made in respect of one vacancy which was so adver tised. It is also not disputed that the can didate in SI. No. 1 joined the post. The petitioners name was admittedly recom mended for appointment in the event can didate in Serial No. 1 does not join. 8. Statute XIII of the U. P. Agricultural University Statute, as are relevant for our purposes provides as follows: CHAPTER XIIi Appointment of Staff (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Appointments to the various categories of posts in the University shall be made as hereinafter prescribed. (3) No selection for any appointment under these statutes shall be made except after adver tisement of the vacancy in at least. three newspapers having adequate circulation in the country: Provided that no such advertisement in newspapers shall be necessary in the case of a selection for the post of the Head of a Depart ment which shall be made from amongst the Professors of the Department concerned. (4) (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . (d) The Selection Committee for the ap pointment of a Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or teacher shall consists of; (i) The Kulpati who shall be the Chairman there of; (ii) The Dean of the Faculty concerned; (iii) One Head of the Department to be nominated by the Kulpati; (iv) Two experts to be nominated by the Kuladhipati: "provided that if the Kulpati (Vice-Chancel lor) is, for any reason, not available to participate in any meeting of the Selection Committee con stituted under clause (d), then in the case of As sociate Professors, Assistant Professors, and equivalent posts, he may, by general or special orders, require the Prati- Kulpati (Pro-vice-Chan-cellor) or the Dean of the Faculty concerned to preside over the Selection Committee and per form functions of the Chairman. " (5 ). (6 ). " (5 ). (6 ). (7) The Selection, Committee shall, by majority of its total membership, recommend one or more, but not more than three, names for each post to the Kulpati and where more than one names are recommended, the order of preference shall also be indicated. (8 ). . . . . . . . . . (9 ). . . . . . . . (10) Where the Board is the appointing authority or the appointment is to be made sub ject-to the approval of the Board, the Kulpati may after considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, make temporary appointments to such posts in the university as cannot be kept vacant without detriment to the work, for a period not exceeding six months or till the next meetiqg of the Board, whichever is earlier, such appointments shall in variably be placed before the Board at its next meeting for ratification and shall be continued only if approved by the board. (i) In case of urgency where the prescribed procedure for filling up a post is likely to take considerable time and in the opinion of Kulpati the proper education of students would conse quently suffer if immediate action is not taken, he may, against the sanctioned strength of staff for a Department fixed by the Board of Management from time, to time, make after recording the reasons and circumstances, ad hoc appointments of staff upto the level of Assistant Professors for a period not exceeding six months, either on the recommendations of the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned or on the basis of recommendations of a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Vice-Chancellor limself for such a purposes. (ii) Such ad hoc appointments made in this manner will automatically cease without any for mal notice after the expiry of six months from the date of appointment or the appointment of a person for the relevant position through the process of regular selection, whichever is earlier, and the incumbents holding ad hoc appointments made under this provision will not be entitled either to any seniority, increment or any other claim on the basis of their ad hoc appointments or to re-appointment only on this ground. (11 ). . . . . . . . . (11 ). . . . . . . . . (12) The post of teachers falling vacant on account of leave/lien vacancies for periods varying from three months to two years may be filled through ad hoc appointment by the Vice-Chan cellor from amongst the persons working in the lower category on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit with the condition that such ad hoc appointment shall not exceed six months at a time and further with the clear understanding that the incumbent will have to revert to his original post on the expiry of the ad hoc appointment. However, such appointments will not in any cir cumstances last for more than two years. 9. In view of the above provision, all appointments are to be made according to the manner prescribed in Chapter XIII of the Statutes. Selection for appointment is to be made only after the advertisement of vacancy in three newspapers having ade quate circulation in the country. Such selec tion is to be made by the Selection Commit tee to be constituted in terms of Para 4 of which clause (d) is relevant for our pur poses. The Selection Committee has to indi cate its order of preference in the recom mendation in terms of para 7. Therefore, regular appointment can only be made in the aforesaid manner and not otherwise. A person appointed on ad hoc basis cannot be regularised. Inasmuch as in view of Para 2, appointment can be made only in the man ner prescribed Chapter XIII does not prescribe any provision for appointment by way of regulansation. 10. Then again ad hoc appointment can be made in two contingencies as provided in years 10 and 12 respectively. Para 10 deals with the appointment with regard to the regular vacancies in case of urgency providing conditions in which such step can be taken. Para 10 has two parts. 10. Then again ad hoc appointment can be made in two contingencies as provided in years 10 and 12 respectively. Para 10 deals with the appointment with regard to the regular vacancies in case of urgency providing conditions in which such step can be taken. Para 10 has two parts. The latter part contained in Clause (ii) deals with ad hoc appointment in case of urgency upto the level of Assistant Professor when the prescribed procedure for filling up such posts is likely to take considerable time and due to which, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, the education of the students would suffer on the recommendation of the Dean and the Head of the Department con cerned or on the basis of the recommenda tions of the Selection Committee to be-constituted by him for such purpose and such appointment would cease without a formal notice after six months from the date of appointment or when the duly selected candidate joins, whichever is earlier, such ad hoc appointment does not entitled the in cumbent either to any seniority, increment or reappointment on account of his ad hoc appointment. The other part viz clause (i) deals with all categories of appointments which are made by the Board or which can be made only with the approval of the Board. Such ad hoc appointment can be made on condition of pending approval of the Board, if non-appointment results in detriment to the work. The period of such appointment cannot exceed six months or till the next meeting of the Board, whichever is earlier. Then again such appointment are to be placed before the Board for ratifica tion in the next meeting and can be con tinued only if approved by the Board. The first part deals with the case where the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose had made recommendations. Inas much as the Vice-Chancellor in such contin gency after considering such recommenda tion of the Selection Committee may make the temporary appointment provided the condition mentioned above is fulfilled. 11. In the present case, the facts do not come within the purview of the first part of Para 10. Inasmuch as no Selection Commit tee has been constituted for the purpose of appointment in the post in which regularisation is being sought by the petitioner. 11. In the present case, the facts do not come within the purview of the first part of Para 10. Inasmuch as no Selection Commit tee has been constituted for the purpose of appointment in the post in which regularisation is being sought by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no scope for making temporary appointment after con sidering the recommendation of the Selec tion Committee subject to the next meeting of the Board for the approval of the Board of such selection for appointment or the Board making such appointment. Admit tedly the post has not been advertised. No Selection Committee has been constituted for the purpose and no recommendation has been made by any Selection Committee so constituted for the purpose. The present gost admittedly is subject to approval of the card for the purpose of appointment. The question also does not fall within the ambit of Second part of Para 10 since the post is above the level of Assistant Professor. Therefore, the recommendation made by the Dean and the Head of the Department cannot have any force or implication. Neither the Vice-Chancellor can constitute a Committee as contemplated in Clause (i) for the post of Senior research Officer which is admittedly a post higher than Assistant Professor. Therefore, ad hoc appointment given to the petitioner does not come within the purview or ambit of Para 10. 12. On the other hand, the present appointment was given in the leave/lien vacancy of the Senior research Officer Dr. T. N. Misra in terms of Para 12. Para 12 empowers the Vice-Chancellor to make ad hoc appointment from amongst the persons working in the lower category on the basis of. seniority subject to fitness. The said provision prescribes the condition limiting 1h6 period of such appointment to six months at a time on the clear understanding that the incumbent shall be reverted to his original post on the expiry of the ad hoc appointment. Para 12 also makes it clear that under no circumstances, such ad hoc appointment can continue beyond two years. 13. The petitioner having accepted the ad hoc appointment in the facts and cir cumstances of the case under Para 12 on the conditions laid down therein, he cannot claim regularisation on the basis of ad hoc appointment under the-said paragraph which clearly stipulates reversion to his original post on the expiry of ad hoc ap pointment. 13. The petitioner having accepted the ad hoc appointment in the facts and cir cumstances of the case under Para 12 on the conditions laid down therein, he cannot claim regularisation on the basis of ad hoc appointment under the-said paragraph which clearly stipulates reversion to his original post on the expiry of ad hoc ap pointment. He also cannot claim to con tinue with such appointments successively fo a period exceeding two years. The Statute confers a power of ad hoc appointment on the Vice- Chancellor under Para 12 which circumscribes and defines the powers in no uncertain terms and without any am biguity. The expression used in Para 2 is plain and simple. Nothing is required to introduce to interpret the same. When the Statute confers a limited power in certain contingencies the same cannot be exceeded except within the ambit thereof. The powers is given to the Vice-Chancellor and the ap pointment is made by him and not by the Board. Even then the Board has not given the power to make any ad hoc appointment except ad hoc appointment as contemplated in Para 10. This procedure does not confer any power on the Board even to regularise such ad hoc appointment. Neither the Board can extend the period circumscribed by para 12. Therefore, the petitioner also cannot claim continuation of ad hoc ap pointment beyond two years. Admittedly the petitioner was given appointment in January 1987. Therefore, in no circumstan ces, he could continue beyond December 1988 since after no extension was made available to him. In view of the specific ex pression used in Para 12, there is no scope for the petitioner to continue with the ad hoc appointment since he has to revert to his original post on the expiry of ad hoc appointment which expired on 27-12-1988. 14. The petitioner cannot claim benefit of his selection made in 1986 be cause of the reason that the selection was made in respect of one vacancy. Admittedly the vacancy in which the petitioner is seek ing to be regularised had occurred on 28th December, 1987 long after the selection in 1986 was made. Therefore, the present post could not be advertised when such a selec tion was made. Selection for one post can not be carried over in expectation of a future vacancy long after the selection. Therefore, the present post could not be advertised when such a selec tion was made. Selection for one post can not be carried over in expectation of a future vacancy long after the selection. Secondly the ad hoc appointment which is Annxure-I contained stipulation in Clause 6 that the petitioner would have to appear in inter view for a regular appointment. In view of the regulations contained in the Statutes such a relief is not available to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the regularisation would amount to giving appointment con trary to the said regulations, namely, without advertisement and Selection as contemplated in the said regulation. 15. Admittedly in the absence of any extension of ad hoc appointment, there was no ad hoc appointment, after 27th Decem ber, 1988. In the counter-affidavit in para graph 10, it has been specifically contended that the petitioner was not discharging the duties and responsibilities of Senior Re search Officer. The said paragraph has been dealt with in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder-affidavit wherein the petitioner had reiterated that he had been continuing to do the same work which he was doing as Senior Research Officer even after 27th December, 1988. However, nothing has been produced before this Court to show that the petitioner was so continuing. Even then in view of regulation referred to above, no ad hoc ap pointment can continue beyond two years. Admittedly no adhoc appointment expired on 27th December, 1988. The writ petition was moved on 27th October, 1989 long after the expiry of extended ad hoc appointment. The recommendation of the Head of the department/dean of the College concerned made on 27th March, 1989 for the extension of the petitioners ad hoc appointment could not be acceded to in respect of post above the level of Asstt. Professor and that too two years after i. e. beyond 27th Decem ber, 1988. The said information was com municated to all concerned including the petitioner by letter dated 1st April, 1989. By a letter dated 2nd/4th April, 1989, the Dean of the College of Technology was informed that the whole case was submitted for con sideration of the Board of management and, therefore, the petitioner was being paid the salary against the substantive post of Assis tant Professor. The disapproval of the Board was communicated by letter dated 28th July, 1989. By a letter dated 2nd/4th April, 1989, the Dean of the College of Technology was informed that the whole case was submitted for con sideration of the Board of management and, therefore, the petitioner was being paid the salary against the substantive post of Assis tant Professor. The disapproval of the Board was communicated by letter dated 28th July, 1989. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was con tinuing in the post of Senior Research Of ficer. On the other hand, in view of the regulation referred to above, he could not continue in the post of Senior Research Officer after the ad hoc appointment ex pired. 16. The facts and circumstances of this case are quite distinguishable from those in the case of Hemanshu Kumar Chaturvedi (supra ). In the said case the petitioner was appointed for a period of six months or till a regularly selected candidate joins whichever is earlier. The period of appointment was extended from time to time, on the same terms and conditions. A request was en dorsed and recommended for extension of the period by the Dean of Faculty but the Vice-Chancellor did not pass any order on the said request. Although there was no order extending the term, but the petitioner continued to work subsequent to 30th June, 1981 and was paid his salary for the month of July and August, 1981 though the extension ended on 30th June, 1981. Even after August, 1981, the petitioner continued to work and had been working as ad hoc teacher since thereafter but he was not paid his salary on the ground that there was no order of extension of the term of his ap pointment beyond 30th June, 1981. Where as in the present case, the request was turned down and the petitioner did not and could not work after 28th December, 1988. Since the petitioner is not working since 28-12-1988 in the post of Senior Research Officer if he is allowed to continue till a regularly selected candidate joins, the same would amount to fresh appointment which we are afraid that this Court is not empow ered to do, particularly when the matter was duly considered by the Board and decided. The ratio decided in the case of Hemanshu Kumar Chatunedi (supra), therefore, can not be applied in the present case. 17. The ratio decided in the case of Hemanshu Kumar Chatunedi (supra), therefore, can not be applied in the present case. 17. The decision in the case of Kar-nataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lec turers Association (supra) also does not help Mr. Khare in view of the facts and cir cumstances of the present case. The facts of the case at hand are also distinguishable with those of the case of Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lecturers Associa tion (supra) inasmuch as the said case re lated to Private Colleges where the problem was created due to defective Rule and ab sence of any provision to effectively deal with such situation. Whereas the present case is governed by the Statutes of the University which is a recognized University under the U. P. Agricultural Universities Act, 1958 and are governed by Rules of law and Statutes which effectively deals with such situation. In the said case, it was ob served that there was no comprehensive legislation of such an important aspect regarding appointment, selection,- promo tion, transfer, payment of salary of teachers which was regulated by Government Orders issued from time to time. Such Government orders provided for appointment for a period of three months or less subject to approval of Director within one month from the date of appointment by the Management or such authority as the Management by order may specify in that behalf. Such temporary appointments may, however, continue for a further period of not more than three months with one days break when selection through Selection Committee is likely to take time. The Direc tor may, for reasons to be recorded in writ ing, refuse approval. Further more the said order provides that such teachers shall be paid a fixed salary which would be ten rupees less than the minimum payable to a regular employee. Whereas in the present case such facts are not available. Here there are specific rules and that the authority had considered the question and had come to a decision of its own. Our attention has not been drawn to any perversity with regard to the said decision. It is also not contended that such decision is without jurisdiction. The only attack that has been directed towards the decision is that on the ground of arbitrariness. Having regard to the regula tions contained in the Statutes, it is very difficult to accept Mr. Our attention has not been drawn to any perversity with regard to the said decision. It is also not contended that such decision is without jurisdiction. The only attack that has been directed towards the decision is that on the ground of arbitrariness. Having regard to the regula tions contained in the Statutes, it is very difficult to accept Mr. Khares contention, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the decision was arbitrary. In the case of Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lecturers Association (supra), in view of a peculiar situation, it was necessary to lay down guideline/direction which is not a case in view of the provisions contained in the Statutes, in the facts and circumstances of the present one. Since the ratio decided in the said case does not help Mr. Khare, the decision in the case of Bestriding M. Madari (supra) has no relevance. 18. On the other hand, the observa tions made in the case of Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lecturers Associa tion (supra) runs counter to the contention of Mr. Khare as has been expressed in para 2 of the said decision, namely: "2. Ad hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations, are compara tively recent innovations to the service jurisprudence. They are individual problem to begging with, become a family problem with pas sage of time and end with human problem in court of law. It is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in, society with little or no ap proach even though better qualified, more meritorious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accom modate someone or for any extraneous reason ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. Or the rules or circulars issued by the department itself em power the authority to do so as stop-gap arrange ment. The former is an abuse of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuine emergency measure the courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence. Latter gives rise to equities which have bothered courts every now and then. The former is an abuse of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuine emergency measure the courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence. Latter gives rise to equities which have bothered courts every now and then. Malady appears to be wide-spread in educational institutions as provisions for temporary or ad hoc appointments have been exploited by the managements of private aided colleges to their advantage by filling it, on one hand, with persons of own choice, at times without following the procedure, and keep ing the teachers exposed to threat of termination, on the other, with all evil consequences flowing out of it. Any institution run by State fund but managed privately is bound to suffer from such inherent drawbacks. In State of Karnataka it is basically State created problem due to defective rule and absence of any provision to effectively deal with such a situation. " 19. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 20. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the authority if it so desire or decade to take steps for selection in the concerned post, if not already taken, in ac cordance with law. In case such selection is made, in that event, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered provided he is eligible therefor. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .