A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Order dated 1 8/09/1998. By the said Order the petitioner was conveyed by the Professor incharge of Applied Psychology Department. University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as university for short ) that as per the Orders received from the University contained in letter dated 27/08/1998 services of the petitioner were not required. Petitioners case is that she was appointed as typist with consolidated salary of Rs. 700. 00 per month on 23/09/1991 after qualifying the. test of typist and her selection was reflected in the merit list. However, her services were not regularised. She was upgraded in April 1995 and was paid consolidated salary, of rs. 1000. 00 per month upto 6/11/1996 in the South Campus of University. Thereafter, on 6/09/1996 she was transferred to North Campus and her salary was increased to Rs. 3000. 00 per month. She was again called back to South campus w. e. f 8/05/1997 and worked there upto 22/11/1997. On 2 4/11/1997 she made representation for regularising her services on the basis of the Agreement dated 22/01/1990 entered into between the University and employees Union. However, inspite of her representation she was served with the impugned letter dated 18/09/1998 conveying her that her services were no longer required. It is also mentioned in the Writ Petition that petitioner continued to work upto October 1998 but was not paid salary from June 1998 onwards. ( 2 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment as typist in the year 1991 but was not selected. In 1995 again her case for appointment on compassionate ground was considered alongwith certain other candidates by the selection Committee but this time also she did not get selected. As far as her initial appointment in the Department of Applied Psychology is concerned, it is stated that she was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700. 00 per month and was paid from the budget head Psychological Services Cum Training Centre as there was no post in the Department. Her engagement in the said Centre came to an end in november 1996. She was not transferred to North Campus in November, 1996 as is alleged. 700. 00 per month and was paid from the budget head Psychological Services Cum Training Centre as there was no post in the Department. Her engagement in the said Centre came to an end in november 1996. She was not transferred to North Campus in November, 1996 as is alleged. Petitioner applied for being engaged on adhoc basis in the North Campus and gave specific undertaking to the following effect- that the present engagement is purely on casual basis and can be terminated at any time without any notice. Further I understand that there is no claim of re-engagement on any basis. " ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Agreement dated 22/01/1990 does not cover the case of the petitioner as it is applicable to those who were in the employment in January 1990 and had worked for more than 730 days on that date. Petitioner was not in employment on that date as she was engaged much thereafter i. e. on 23rd September, 1991. ( 4 ) IN so far as reliance upon the settlement dated 24/06/1991 is concerned, this document would not come to the aid of the petitioner. Although Executive Council passed necessary Resolution on 8/06/1991, cut off date was fixed as January 1990 for the purpose of giving benefit. Para 1 reads as under:- "those who had been working on daily wages/ad-hoc/consolidate basis for more than 730 days in University on the date of the agreement with the Union i. e. January, 1990 may be absorbed in the regular vacancies, which are available at present and future vacancies after following the prescribed procedure. " ( 5 ) IT is clear that in order to get the benefit of absorption, the concerned employee should have worked on daily wage/ad-hoc/consolidate basis for more than 730 days in the University on the date of Agreement i. e. January, 1990. Petitioner was not even in the employment of the University in January 1990 and naturally she does not fulfill the other requirement also i. e. employed/worked for more than 730 days till January, 1990. Therefore, this Agreement does not apply in the case of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the facts of the case that petitioner was not appointed pursuant to selection process as per rules. Therefore, this Agreement does not apply in the case of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the facts of the case that petitioner was not appointed pursuant to selection process as per rules. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that there cannot be an automatic regularisation and to get the appointment to the particular post one has to undergo the selection procedure as per rules and regulations framed by the University (Ref: State ofrajasthan and another vs. Rameshwar Lal Gehlot reported in 1996 (1) Supreme 228 . Hindustant education Society and anothervs. S. K. Kaleem Shaikh Gulam Nabi reported in 1997 (3) Supreme 292 and D. Kishore Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1996 (8) Supreme 82 ). ( 8 ) THE University/college is supposed to fill up the post in accordance with statutory rules and regulations. Appointment can be made only when there are posts in a particular cadre and when there is an advertisement given to fill up these posts and proper selection procedure is followed considering all eligible candidates, who apply for the said post, by the duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with rules. Only those candidates who are recommended for appointment by the Selection committee can be appointed. Admittedly petitioner has not undergone this kind of selection process. Therefore, she is not entitled to regularisation because simply she was appointed on ad hoc basis to the postof typist and worked there for some time. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The only direction which can be given is that whenever such post is advertised, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for the same and the respondent shall consider the petitioner for appointment to the said post subject to her eligibility and according to rules and regulations. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition stands disposed of.