A. K. YOG, J. Writ Petition No. 23403 of 1989, referred to as the leading case, was connected with writ petition No. 3058 of 1992 (referred to as second writ petition) and with writ petition No. 1689 of 1995 (referred to as third writ petition) vide Court order dated 27-1-1997 (Refer to order sheet of writ petition No. 3058 of 1992 ). 2. Facts of the three writ petitions are common, hence they are taken up together and decided by common judgment. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. Undisputed salient facts of the case are as follows. 3. Devendra Degree College, Bilthara Road, Ballia (for short called the college) is an affiliated college of Purwanchal University and prior to creation of Purwanchal University, it was affiliated to Gorakhpur University. 4. Management of the college initiated steps for seeking affiliation for teaching Geography at Graduation level. Vide letter dated 5-9-1983, the Chancellor informed the Registrar, Gorakhpur University that "the Chancellor has been pleased to accord sanction to the proposal to grant provisional affiliation to Devendra Degree College, Bilthara Road, Ballia for the B. A. in Geography for a period of two years with effect from July 1, 1983 subject to the condition that till the necessary posts are sanctioned by the Director of Higher Education, U. P. the Management will pay salary etc. to them from its own resources. " 5. Deputy Registrar (Affiliation) of the University vide letter dated 12/16-9-1983 forwarded aforesaid letter of the Chancellor for information and necessary action to the Principal of the college (Annexure 1 to the leading case ). 6. The Management sought approval of the Vice Chancellor for making appointment of the petitioner which has taken place on the basis of the advertisement in daily newspaper dated 12-10-1983 and consequently selection being held by a Selection Committee with one Expert (nominated by the Vice- Chancellor of the University) as contemplated under law. Candidate whose name was recommended at Sl. No. 1 in the panel, did not join and hence the Vice Chancellor accorded approval for ad hoc appointment of second candidate on the panel, namely, Arvind Kumar Singh (petitioner before us) vide letter dated December 31, 1983 and appointment letter was issued on behalf of the Management through its Manager dated 1-1-1984 in favour of the petitioner (Annexures 2 and 3 respectively to the leading case ). 7. 7. Meanwhile Director (H. E.) U. P. at Allahabad vide letter dated 8-8-1984 addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad, informed that the post of Lecturer (Geography) was sanctioned w. e. f. July 1, 1984 on temporary basis upto 30-6-1985 and further sanctioned payment of salary to the incumbent working on the said post (Annexure 5 to the leadings case ). The petitioner as well as respondents (represented by Standing Counsel) have filed copies of certain letters indicating that said post was continued and sanction was accorded by the Director (H. E.) U. P. Allahabad from year to year. 8. With the counter-affidavit (sworn by Dr. Suresh Chandra) on behalf of Director (H. E.)/respondent No. 1 in the leading case reference is made to the letters issued from the office of Director (H. E.) U. P. Allahabad, (filed as Annexures-CA 1, CA 2 and CA 3 ). These documents indicate that the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation and vacancy was required to be notified to the Commission Letter of the Higher Education Directorate addressed to the Secretary, U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Annexure CA 3) shows that the petitioners regularisation against one temporary post of Lecturer (Geography) created/sanctioned under Directorates order dated 8-8-1984 was declined. According to Annexure CA 4, letter of Joint Secretary, U. P. Government addressed to the Director (H. E.) U. P. at Allahabad dated 18-3-1991, shows that the petitioners regularisation was denied on the ground that he was the son of the Principal of the Institution. 9. Section 31-B (3) (b) of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (for short called the Commission Act) contemplates that no teacher shall be entitled to substantive appointment by way of regularisation if such teacher was related to any Member of the Management or Principal of the college concerned. 10. The petitioner seeks to challenge the restriction contemplated under aforesaid section on appointment of a relation of Principal of the Institution. According to the petitioner, when he was appointed there was no such restriction in law and, therefore, he could not be deprived of regularisation in view of the provisions incorporated by way of amendment as it aimed to create sub-category within the category of teachers validly appointed on or before cut off date viz. 1-1-1983. 11. According to the petitioner, when he was appointed there was no such restriction in law and, therefore, he could not be deprived of regularisation in view of the provisions incorporated by way of amendment as it aimed to create sub-category within the category of teachers validly appointed on or before cut off date viz. 1-1-1983. 11. We need not decide this issue at this stage as we find that the same is not required at all since the case of the petitioner falls under Section 31-C of the Constitution Act, (and not under Section 31-B (3) (b) of the Commission Act ). 12. For convenience Sections 31-B and 31-C of the Commission Act are being reproduced: "31-BIns. by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (U. P. Act No. 22 of 1985) w. e. f. 22-6-1985. Regularisation of certain ad hoc appointments.- (1) Every teacher, other than a Principal directly appointed on or before January 3, 1984 and ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 or the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983, who posseses the qualification prescribed under or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Statutes, shall with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1985, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided that such teacher has been continuously serving the College from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. Subs. by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1989 dated October 6, 1989. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. Subs. by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1989 dated October 6, 1989. (2-a) A teacher other than a Principal directly appointed on or before January 3, 1984 on ad hoc basis in a vacancy referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) of sub-para (1) of paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 or in clause (iv) or clause (v) of sub-para (1) of paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983, in accordance with the provisions of such Orders and continuously serving the college from the date of such ad hoc appointment till September 2, 1989, who possess the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the concerned Statutes, may be given substantive appointment by the Management of the College if: (a) any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on September 2, 1989; and (b) the work and conduct of the teacher is found satisfactory. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment if - (a) on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filed, or selection for such post had already been made, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or (b) such teacher was related to any member of the Management, or the Principal of the College concerned. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if they are related in the manner mentioned in the Explanation to Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. Ins. by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) (U. P. Act 2 of 1992 w. e. f. 22-11- 1991 ). Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if they are related in the manner mentioned in the Explanation to Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. Ins. by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) (U. P. Act 2 of 1992 w. e. f. 22-11- 1991 ). 31-C Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments.- (1) Any teacher, other than a Principal who - (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3, 1984 but not later than June 30, 1991 on a post: (i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier; or (ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its falling vacant permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; or (iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been continuously serving the college from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992; (b) was so appointed after three months of the notification to the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in clause (a), or if appointed within such period, no recommendation was made by the Commission within such period; (c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad hoc appointment; (d) is not related to any member of the management or the principal of the college concerned in the manner mentioned in the explanation to Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973; (e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted under sub- section (2); may be given substantive appointment by the management of the college, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (a ). (2) The Selection Committee consisting the following members namely - (i) a member of the Commission nominated by the Government who shall be the Chairman: (ii) an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Higher Education Department; (iii) the Director; shall consider the cases of every such ad hoc teacher and on being satisfied about this eligibility in view of the provisions of sub-section (1), and his work and conduct on the basis of his record, recommend his name to the management of the college for appointment under sub-section (1 ). (3) Where a person recommended by the Commission under Section 13 before the commencement of the Act referred to in sub- section (1) does not get an appointment because of the appointment of another person under sub-section (1) in the vacancy for which he was so recommended, the State Government shall make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy in any college and the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 13 and of Section 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply. (4) A teacher appointed on ad hoc basis referred to in sub-section (1) who does not get a substantive appointment under that sub-section and a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under sub- section (1) shall cease to hold the ad hoc appointment aftersubs. by U. P. Act No. 22 of 1992. " (30th June, 1992 ). 13. Aforequoted Section 31-C was again amended, which is being reproduced: Ins. by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Amendment (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1992) dated November 22, 1991. by U. P. Act No. 22 of 1992. " (30th June, 1992 ). 13. Aforequoted Section 31-C was again amended, which is being reproduced: Ins. by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Amendment (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1992) dated November 22, 1991. 31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments.- (1) Any teacher, other than a principal who - (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3, 1984 but not later than November 22, 1991 on a post: (i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier; or (ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its falling vacant permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; or (iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the College and has been continuously serving the college from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992; (b)Subs. by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1997 (w. e. f. 26-5- 1997 ). was appointed on ad hoc basis under sub- section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in Clause (a) whether or not the vacancy was notified to the Commission; (c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post or was given relaxation from such qualifications under the provisions of the relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad hoc appointment. (d)Clause (d) omitted by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1997 (w. e. f. 26-5-1997 ). *** *** *** (e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted under sub- section (2): may be given substantive appointment by the management of the college, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in Clause (a ). " 14. The petitioner sought amendment and incorporated legal grounds in the writ petition to the effect that the action of the State Government in not permitting his regularisation is discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and preferred to claim regularisation under Section 31-C, as last amended (aforequoted), where there is no restriction of relationship between principal and teacher. 15. 15. The petitioner continued to work in the college but without advantage of regularisation. 16. Annexure 6 to the second writ petition is letter dated 22-10- 1990 communicating grant of permanent affiliation under Section 37 (2) of the U. P. State Universities Act to the college for teaching Geography upto Graduation level. The provisional affiliation granted w. e. f. 1-7-1988 to 30-6-1990 was made permanent w. e. f. July 1, 1990. Annexure 7 to the second petition is the letter of Director (H. E.) U. P. at Allahabad addressed to the Manager of the College dated 5-8-1991. Para 3 of the said letter contemplates that extension of sanction to a post will be treated to be on permanent basis when Chancellor of the University accords permanent affiliation. This letter/annexure 7 to this petition clearly shows that the stand of Higher Education Services Commission was that the post held by the petitioner was to be treated permanent/substantive w. e. f. the date of permanent affiliation. In the instant case, permanent affiliation was accorded by the Chancellor w. e. f. July 1, 1990. Hence, the post held by the petitioner will, therefore, be treated to have become permanent w. e. f. July 1, 1990. 17. In the second writ petition, this Court had passed an interim order dated 23-1-1992 which reads: "till further orders, the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated under U. P. Ordinance dated 22-11-1991 (Annexure 8 to the petition ). " 18. The petitioner asserts that he is still continuing and discharging duties in the college. There is nothing on record to rebut the said position. 19. The petitioner, however, being aggrieved due to refusal to release his salary and also not deciding his representation was compelled to file writ petition No. 1689 of 1995. 20. The case of the petitioner falls squarely under Section 31-C of the Commission Act inasmuch as the post was substantively created w. e. f. July 1, 1990. The learned Counsels for the respondents have not been able to show us otherwise. Even otherwise ground of objection raised by the Director (H. E.) on the ground of the petitioner being the son of the Principal of the college became not existent in view of amended Section 31-C. Order refusing regularisation passed by respondent suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record. 21. Even otherwise ground of objection raised by the Director (H. E.) on the ground of the petitioner being the son of the Principal of the college became not existent in view of amended Section 31-C. Order refusing regularisation passed by respondent suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record. 21. In view of the above, order of the Government as well as that of Director (H. E.) U. P. at Allahabad dated 20-7-1989 and 18-3- 1991 respectively (Annexures CA 3 and CA 4 to the counter- affidavit in the leading case) declining to consider petitioners case for regularisation under amended provisions (particularly under Section 31-C as amended upto date), quoted above, cannot be sustained and hereby quashed and declared non-est. 22. Director (H. E.) U. P. at Allahabad is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 31-C of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act (as amended upto date) and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the observations made above and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is also directed that the petitioner be paid salary with increments etc. as per Government orders prescribing pay-scale/revised pay-scale etc. , as may be due to the petitioner, treating him in continuous service. 23. The above mentioned writ petitions are hereby allowed, subject to the directions and observations made above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .