G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the order dated 6. 11. 2000 passed by the Chancellor, and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to Issue an appointment order to the petitioner as lecturer in Puran-Itihas. The parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. ( 2 ) SAMPURNANAND Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as the University)Issued an advertisement on 24. 10. 1998 for making appointment on several posts. The dispute here is with regard to appointment on two posts of lecturer in Puran-Itihas out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, in all 22 candidates applied for one post which was of unreserved category. A Selection Committee was constituted which met on 1. 6. 2000 to make selection on the unreserved post of lecturer and it prepared a panel containing three names in which Smt. Sashi Rani Misra was placed at serial No. 1, the petitioner Dr. Umapati Upadhyaya was placed at serial No. 2 and Dr. Nageshpati Tripathi was placed at serial No. 3. The executive council thereafter considered the matter and the candidate placed at serial No. 1 in the panel, namely, Smt. Sashi Rani Misra, was issued an appointment order. The executive council again met on 30. 7. 2000 and after recording that in view of the roster published on the same date, the other post of lecturer which had been advertised as a reserved post had become unreserved. Thereafter, it passed a resolution by majority for appointment of the petitioner Dr. Umapati upadhyaya on the second post. It further resolved that necessary approval be obtained from the chancellor for appointing the petitioner on the aforesaid second post. The matter was then considered by the Chancellor, who by his order dated 6. 11. 2000 set aside the decision of the executive council for making appointment of the petitioner. The executive council was directed to make selection after Issuing a fresh advertisement. This order of the Chancellor has been impugned in the present writ petition. ( 3 ) DR. The matter was then considered by the Chancellor, who by his order dated 6. 11. 2000 set aside the decision of the executive council for making appointment of the petitioner. The executive council was directed to make selection after Issuing a fresh advertisement. This order of the Chancellor has been impugned in the present writ petition. ( 3 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the power of making appointment is with the executive council of the university in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the matter could not have been referred to the Chancellor. He has further submitted that the only provision under which the executive council could refer the matter to the Chancellor is Sub-section (8) (a) of section 31, but the provisions of the said sub-section will be attracted if the executive council did not agree with the recommendation made by the selection committee, which was not the case here and, consequently, the reference to the Chancellor was wholly illegal. It has thus been urged that the order passed by the Chancellor setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing for fresh advertisement of the post is illegal. Learned counsel for Dr. Dev Krishna dwivedi, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, has submitted that the selection Committee had met to make selection only on one post which had been advertised as being of unreserved category and the panel prepared was only for making appointment on the said post. The Selection Committee had not made any selection for the second post, which had been Initially advertised as that of reserved category and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on the aforesaid second post was wholly illegal. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Chancellor is eminently just and proper and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same. ( 4 ) THE copy of the advertisement issued by the University on 24. 10. 1998 has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition and it clearly shows that two posts of lecturer in Puran-Itihas had been advertised out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. ( 4 ) THE copy of the advertisement issued by the University on 24. 10. 1998 has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition and it clearly shows that two posts of lecturer in Puran-Itihas had been advertised out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the University (sworn by Sri K. C. Mehrotra) that 22 candidates including the petitioner applied for the aforesaid one post of general category. The Selection committee prepared a panel of three names only with regard to the aforesaid one post of general category in accordance with Sub-section (7a) of Section 31 of the Act and Statute 11. 06 (1) of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows : "section 31 (7a ).--It shall be open to the Selection Committee to recommend one or more but not more than three names for each post. Statute 11. 06 (1 ).--If the Selection Committee recommends more than one candidate for appointment, it may in its discretion arrange their names in order of preference. Where the committee decides to arrange the names in order of preference, it shall be deemed to have signified that in the event of the first being not available, the second may be appointed, and in the event of the second also being not available, the third may be appointed, and so on. " ( 5 ) IN the panel, Smt. Sashi Rani Misra was placed at serial No. 1 and the petitioner Dr. Umapati upadhyaya was placed at serial No. 2. There is no dispute that Smt. Sashi Rani Mlsra was given appointment order and she joined on the post. The principle that panel gets exhausted after the candidate placed at serial No. 1 joins the post and the said panel cannot be utilised or be given effect to for making appointment of any other post is well-settled. In a recent judgment of the apex Court in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Anr. , AIR 2001 SC 2900 . In a recent judgment of the apex Court in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Anr. , AIR 2001 SC 2900 . It has been held as follows in paragraph 4 of reports : "with the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. . . . . " ( 6 ) THIS question was considered in more detail in State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan singh and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 765 , and it was held as under : "where the particular advertisement and the consequent selection process were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and not to fill up the other vacancies, the merit list of 129 candidates prepared in the ratio of 1:4 on the basis of the written test as well as viva voce will hold good only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies and no further because said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. " [para 7] ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the panel prepared by the Selection Committee on 1. 6. 2001 in which the petitioner had been placed at serial No. 2 could not be utilised or taken into consideration for making appoint ment on any other post. The recommendation made by the Executive Council for appointing the petitioner is, therefore, wholly illegal. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 31 of the Act says that teacher of the University shall be issued appointment order by the executive council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner provided in other sub-sections of Section 31. Sub-section (4) provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment of a teacher. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 31 of the Act says that teacher of the University shall be issued appointment order by the executive council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner provided in other sub-sections of Section 31. Sub-section (4) provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment of a teacher. Sub-section (5) provides for a panel of six or more experts in each subject to study. Sub-section (10) provides that no selection for any appointment shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. The proceedings of the Executive Council clearly show and it has also not been challenged from the side of the petitioner that the Selection Committee did not at all consider or prepare a panel for making selection on the second post. However, the executive council passed a resolution on 30. 7. 2000 for making appointment of the petitioner on the second post even though no selection for the said post had been made by the Selection Committee. Thus, the resolution of the executive council for making appointment of the petitioner is not based upon any selection and is, therefore, clearly illegal. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that it was mentioned in the advertisement that if prior to holding of interview any change or amendment was made in qualifications or reservation policy by University Grants Commission or by U. P. Government, the same would be applicable. According to the learned counsel, roster regarding reservation on the post of teachers was published on the same day when the Executive Council considered the matter i. e. , 30. 7. 2000 and according to the said roster the second post of lecturer in Puran-Itihas also became unreserved and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on the said post was perfectly legal and valid. It is not possible to accept the submission made. There is a column towards the end of advertisement which means minimum qualifications. Therein it is provided that in case of amendment in qualification or rules regarding reservation, the amended qualifications will be applicable. The expression used is, The exact literal translation of this expression would be--then the amended qualifications will be applicable. It does not say anything about reservation. There is a column towards the end of advertisement which means minimum qualifications. Therein it is provided that in case of amendment in qualification or rules regarding reservation, the amended qualifications will be applicable. The expression used is, The exact literal translation of this expression would be--then the amended qualifications will be applicable. It does not say anything about reservation. The impression that a candidate would carry after reading the advertisement would be that in case the qualifications are amended by the University Grants Commission or by the U. P. Government prior to the interview, it is the amended qualifications which will apply. At any rate, a perusal of the advertisement does not show that both the posts were of unreserved category. On the contrary, it clearly provided that one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and the other post was of unreserved category. If under the new roster published on 30. 7. 2000 the second post also became that of unreserved category, the proper course would have been to advertise the post afresh and, thereafter, to hold the selection. ( 10 ) DR. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has lastly urged that the only contingency in which the Executive Council is required to refer the matter to the Chancellor is that provided under sub-section (8) (a) of Section 31 of the Act. which is being quoted hereinbelow : "31. Appointment of teachers.-- (1 ). . . . . (8) (a) in the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final : provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendations of the selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such committee, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be final. " ( 11 ) DR. Padia has submitted that the case was not covered by the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the Executive Council erred in making reference to the Chancellor and, consequently, the order passed by the Chancellor, setting-aside the appointment of the petitioner, is illegal. The argument does not at all help the petitioner. " ( 11 ) DR. Padia has submitted that the case was not covered by the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the Executive Council erred in making reference to the Chancellor and, consequently, the order passed by the Chancellor, setting-aside the appointment of the petitioner, is illegal. The argument does not at all help the petitioner. The resolution of the Executive Council does not show that it first made the appointment of the petitioner and, thereafter, made the reference to the chancellor. On the contrary, it mentions that after taking approval of the Chancellor for making appointment of the petitioner on the second unreserved post of lecturer, further action will be taken in the matter. It appears that the Executive Council itself was in doubt about the course of action adopted by it and, therefore, it wanted that the Chancellor should grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner. The case may not strictly come within the purview of Sub-section (8) (a) of Section 31 of the Act, but it is not possible to read the resolution of the Executive council in a manner that the part relating to making of reference to the Chancellor alone may be severed and quashed and retain the remaining part which may give an order of appointment to the petitioner. ( 12 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be ignored. As shown earlier, the appointment of the petitioner is wholly Illegal. Even assuming for the sake of argument that reference to the Chancellor was bad and, consequently, the Chancellor had no authority to pass any order, even then this Court would not Issue a writ, the effect of which would be to restore an illegal order. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Apex Court in Gadde venkaleswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , AIR 1966 SC 828 (Para 17 ). Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court would be fully justified in declining to issue any writ to quash the order of the Chancellor. ( 13 ) THERE is another disturbing feature of the case, which deserves notice. The petitioner himself is a member of the Executive Council of the University. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court would be fully justified in declining to issue any writ to quash the order of the Chancellor. ( 13 ) THERE is another disturbing feature of the case, which deserves notice. The petitioner himself is a member of the Executive Council of the University. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that when his matter was taken up for consideration, he did not take part in the proceedings of the Executive Council. It is strange that being a member of the Executive council, which has the power to make appointment and which is the appointing authority, the petitioner himself became applicant for the post of lecturer and his own colleagues in the executive Council went out of their way to anyhow give him an appointment order. Fairness required that If the petitioner was himself an aspirant for the post of lecturer, he ought to have resigned from the Executive Council before the Selection Committee considered his case. The university is run by the funds provided by the State and it must ensure absolute fairness in the matter of making appointment of a teacher. It is not necessary for us to make any comment on the manner in which the Executive Council resolved to select the petitioner for a post of lecturer which allegedly became unreserved in view of the roster which was published on that very date on which the Executive Council passed the resolution. The question is not whether the members of the Executive Council were biased in favour of the petitioner who was none else but their own colleague in that high functioning body. But the real question is whether the other aspirants for the post and the teaching faculty of the University and the students would have the confidence that the appointment of the petitioner had been made in a fair and Impartial manner. If a member of the Executive Council himself becomes an applicant for the post and is appointed, no one would accept that the appointment was made in a fair and proper manner. This kind of appointment would undermine the prestige of the university and is bound to bring it in a bad repute. If a member of the Executive Council himself becomes an applicant for the post and is appointed, no one would accept that the appointment was made in a fair and proper manner. This kind of appointment would undermine the prestige of the university and is bound to bring it in a bad repute. ( 14 ) THE petitioner also made a reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act praying that a direction be Issued to the University to issue him an appointment order. This reference was also rejected by the Chancellor on 9. 2. 2001. The petitioner has moved an amendment application for quashing of the aforesaid order of the Chancellor. The reasons given for rejecting the reference are practically the same on which reference made by the Executive Council was rejected. We find no ground to interfere with the aforesaid order of the Chancellor. ( 15 ) DR. Padia has lastly submitted that the Executive Council had resolved to appoint the petitioner on a temporary post which is for short duration and, therefore, this Court should not intervene with such short-term appointment. In our opinion, the appointment of the petitioner is per se illegal and the fact that the post on which the appointment has been made is a temporary one, can be of no relevance. It is common knowledge that persons appointed on temporary posts continue to function for years and often they attain the age of superannuation from that very post. The Chancellor having found the resolution of the Executive Council for making appointment of the petitioner to be manifestly illegal, it is not possible for this Court to quash the same. ( 16 ) IN view of the reasons discussed above, the writ petition falls and is accordingly dismissed. .