Judgment :- Both the writ petitions arise similar questions of law and based on similar facts and were heard together and as such are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed to quash the appointment of the respondents 3 & 4 and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to redesignate the petitioners as Lecturers in the Department of Physics in the respondent University. The facts to the case briefly stated are as follows : - Petitioner in W.P.No.19834 of 2002 is a Post Graduate in M.Sc., (Physics) with M.Ed. and the petitioner in W.P.No.19835 of 2002 is a Post Graduate in M.Sc., (Applied Physics and Computer Electronics) with M.Phil. Petitioners have been appointed as Technicians (subsequently redesignated as Technical Officer) in the Department of Physics in Bharathiar University (hereinafter referred to as the University). 3. The University Grants Commission, in short UGC, has laid down certain norms for redesignation of staff. The conditions required as indicated in paragraph 9 of such guidelines. Para 9 inter alia provides that all redesignation of staff will be processed through a screening committee appointed by Vice-Chancellor. 9(b) provides that an incumbent in the cadre of Technical Officers can opt for redesignation to the corresponding teaching post in writing to the University authorities. The redesignation so done shall be subject to the conditions given in 9 (a)(i). Para 9(a)(i) be relevant is extracted in extenso : a) Existing Staff: i) The Existing PSOs, SSOs and Sos could be redesignated in the cadres of either the teaching or non-teaching subject to the following conditions : 1. The incumbent satisfies the minimum education qualifications and experience for the post as given in these guidelines. 2. The incumbent has teaching load in his or other departments and participates in other academic activities of the department related to instrumentation. 3. He/she has been selected by an appropriate selection committee of the University for University teachers otherwise, he/she should appear before such a selection committee. 4. He/she gives in writing concurrence to fulfil all the duties, including services, that are assigned to him by the Head of the Centre. 5. Those who do not satisfy the above conditions ordo not desire academic designations will be appropriately redesigned in the cadre of Technical officers.” 4. 4. He/she gives in writing concurrence to fulfil all the duties, including services, that are assigned to him by the Head of the Centre. 5. Those who do not satisfy the above conditions ordo not desire academic designations will be appropriately redesigned in the cadre of Technical officers.” 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the petitioners have given such option when the posts are available, the University has refused to consider the case of the petitioners and has instead redesignated the respondents 3 & 4 who are junior to the petitioners as lecturers and has issued an advertisement for recruitment of lectures in the Department of Physics by ignoring the application of the petitioners. 5. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. The main ground taken by the University is that the petitioners had not been selected by a Selection Committee as envisaged in the guideline. The petitioners at the time of their initial appointment have not been selected by a Selection Committee for University teachers, but had been selected through a committee for non-teachers and they did not fulfil the requirements laid down by U.G.C. It is also indicated that the petitioners by virtue of their job, are not required to teach the students and as such they do not qualify condition No.2 of the guideline 9(a)(i). It has been further indicated that the respondents 3 & 4, who were appointed as system analysists, were otherwise qualified and eligible and they were redesignated as lecturers. 6. Learned counsel for the University has contended that the petitioners by the order of appointment, are not required to undertake any teaching work and therefore, they are not eligible. This submission is based on misconception regarding duties of the petitioners. It is not disputed that the petitioners are required to discharge duty in accordance with the direction issued by the Head of the Department. The petitioners have produced relevant documents, including the time table prepared by the Department itself to show that they are being asked to take teaching in theory papers as well as practical classes. Keeping in view the various materials produced by the petitioners, there cannot be any doubt that they have been undertaking work of teaching in the Department and are participating in other academic activities of the Department. Keeping in view the various materials produced by the petitioners, there cannot be any doubt that they have been undertaking work of teaching in the Department and are participating in other academic activities of the Department. It is thus clear that the second condition indicated in the guidelines is fulfilled by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the University has vehemently contended that as per condition No.3, it is necessary that an incumbent technical officer for being redesignated as lecturer, should have been selected by an appropriate selection committee of the University for the University teachers and since the petitioners were selected through selection committee for non-teachers, they are not eligible as per condition No.3. This submission is again based on misconception of condition NO.3 which has already been extracted. 8. A mere perusal of the aforesaid clause indicates that if a person has been selected by an appropriate selection committee of the University for the University teachers, they would be ipso facto satisfying the requirement under Condition No.3. However, the subsequent expression “ ... Otherwise he should appear before such a committee” makes it clear that if a technical officer has not been selected by an appropriate selection committee of the University for university teachers, he has to to appear before such a selection committee before being redesignated as a lecturer. 9. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioners had been selected by a selection committee meant for non-teachers and as such in order to get the benefit of being redesignated as lecturers, the petitioners should appear before such a selection committee. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the petitioners are not claiming automatic absorption as lecturers, but they are craving leave for being considered and for the aforesaid purpose their case should be considered by the selection committee. 11. A stand has been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University that no such selection committee is in existence and as such the petitioners’ case cannot be considered. Such a stand has to be merely stated to be rejected. Since relevant guidelines contemplate that technical officers can give option for being redesignated as lecturers, when posts are available, the cases of such technical officers have to be considered by the appropriate selection committee keeping in view the UGC guidelines. Such a stand has to be merely stated to be rejected. Since relevant guidelines contemplate that technical officers can give option for being redesignated as lecturers, when posts are available, the cases of such technical officers have to be considered by the appropriate selection committee keeping in view the UGC guidelines. Non-constitution of such selection committee is no excuse to ignore the cases of the eligible candidates. If such selection committee is not there, steps should be taken to have such selection committee as quickly as possible and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the guidelines and in the light of the observations already made in the present order. In the result, it is directed that the case of the petitioners and other eligible candidates should be considered keeping in view their respective qualifications and finally a decision should be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. It is made clear that before considering the case of the petitioner and other eligible candidates, if any, in accordance with UGC guidelines, no further steps should be taken for recruitment of lecturers from other sources. 12. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.