Heard Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. In this case although the petition was admitted on 9-7-1992, no counter-af fidavit has been filed as yet. 3. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 20-6-1992 An-nexure-6 to this petition by which his prayer for regularisation as lecturer in Economics in National Degree College, Barahalganj, Gorakhpur has been rejected. 4. The post of lecturer fell vacant and therefore a requisition was sent to the Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur on 15-2-1989 Annexure-1 to this writ peti tion. Thereafter the Committee of Management of the Institution obtained a letter of permission for making appoint ment from the Regional Higher Educa tion Officer-Goraknpur and the same was given by letter dated 19-4-1989 Annexure 2 to this writ petition. Since the commis sion failed to appoint, an advertisement was made in the daily newspaper dainik Jagran on 31-3-1989, inviting applica tions from the eligible candidates for the appointment to the post of lecturer. The petitioner applied and an interview took place and ultimately the petitioner was appointed by the committee and a letter of approval was also obtained from the University. Initially the letter of appoint ment was from 4-12-1989 but later on this order/letter was modified to the effect that the approval is granted w. e. f. the dale on which the petitioner had taken charge. The photo copy of letters dated 4-12-1989 and 16-1-1990 are Annexures No. 3 and 4 to this Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner started teaching in the institution w. e. f. 1-8-1989 in pur suance of the letter of the Committee of Management dated 30-7-1989. The true eopy of the appointment letter is annexed to this writ petition as Annexure 2-A. 6. In para 6 of the petition it has been stated that the approval from the Univer sity was given to the petitioner from lime to time and ultimately the State Govern ment promulgated an Ordinance on 22-11- 1991 known as the U. P. Higher Educa tion Service Commission (Amendment) Ordinance which later on became an Act. This ordinance introduced Section 31-C in the Act. This provision provides for regularisation. 7. By the impugned order dated 20-6-1992 the petitioner has been held in eligible as he does not possess continuous high academic record. This ordinance introduced Section 31-C in the Act. This provision provides for regularisation. 7. By the impugned order dated 20-6-1992 the petitioner has been held in eligible as he does not possess continuous high academic record. The learned Coun sel for the petitioner submitted that the view of the respondent is arbitrary and he has invited our attention to Statute 11. 01 of Gorakhpur University which has been quoted in para 10 to this writ petition. Sub-clause 7 (d) of the Act states that a candidate having 50% of marks in each of the two examination B. A. and Inter mediate separately is said to have consis tently good academic record. As pointed out in para 7 to this writ petition, the petitioner had obtained 52. 24% marks in B. A. examination and 57%; in Inter mediate. Hence in view of Statute 11. 01 (7) (d) it has to be held that he had a consistently good academic record. 8. In view of the above we hold that the order dated 20-6-1992 is arbitrary and it is hereby quashed. We direct that the service of the petitioner shall be regularised from the date of the impugned order with all benefits and all arrears to be given within three months from the date of the production of the copy of this order. 9. With the observation made above, this writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .