SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Manish Goyal for petitioner, and learned standing counsel for respondents. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4, Sri sanjeev Loomba as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in Krishi Vigyan Kendra Awagarh district etah, at Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra. ( 3 ) KRISHI Vigyan Kendra Awagrah, Etah is a project of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, run by the Council at Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra. The college is affiliated to Agra University, Agra. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was appointed in the college on 18. 8. 1983 as Routine Grade Clerk on 18. 8. 1983. He was also required to look after the work of Officiating Accountant of the agriculture Farm run by the College. With effect from 14. 4. 1987, the petitioner was also required to officiate as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant at the Krishi Vigyan Kendra. One post of head Clerk-cum-Accountant was advertised on 23. 10. 1988. The petitioner applied for the post. He is M. A. in Hindi and at the time of application, he had six and half years experience of work as a routine grade clerk in the educational institution. The respondents, however, selected and appointed one Sri Sanjeev Loomba as Head Clerk-cum Accountant. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has challenged the direct appointment on the grounds that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for the post as he did not possess five years experience as Office Assistant in an educational institution. It is contended that five years experience was an essential condition of eligibility, which could not be relaxed, as there was no provision for relaxation. Sri Goyal submits that first statute of the Agra University are attracted in the present case. He also submits that the Committee of Management of Krishi Vigyan Kendra attached with the college had also resolved in its decision taken at item No. 11 on 15. 10. 1988 to fill the vacant post of Head clerk-cum-Accountant of the Centre, by a person who is intermediate, and had 10 years experience, or a graduate with five years experience as Office Assistant in an educational institution. According to Sri Goyal, respondent No. 4 was not eligible as he had worked as accountant in a private organisation and had no experience of working in an educational institution. According to Sri Goyal, respondent No. 4 was not eligible as he had worked as accountant in a private organisation and had no experience of working in an educational institution. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit of Sri R. K. Agarwal, Senior Assistant, Raja Balwant Singh Post graduate College, Agra, it is stated that appointment was made under para 11 (3) (a) and (b) of the scheme by a Committee on the recommendation of appointment subcommittee. The service condition of the employees under the scheme were not regulated by any statute or Government orders, and were simply governed by a contract entered into between the employees and the management of the college. It is stated in paragraph 9 that the relationship with the petitioner vis-a-vis, the College and Indian Council Agricultural Research are not regulated by any statutory rules and were being purely contractual and are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) PARA 7 of the Scheme provides that recruitment of the KVK/ttc staff is to be done by the host institutions as per their norms and procedures. For instance, the recruitment of the KVK attached to the ICAR research institutes will be done by the ICAR recruitment policies and procedures. The advertisement annexed as Annexure-C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit provided for qualifications and experience as follows : "qualifications.--Intermediate with ten years working experience of Assistant or Routine Clerk in the Colleges. Higher qualified candidates may be given relaxation in the experience. " the advertisement made it clear that higher qualified candidates may be given relaxation in the experience. In the present case, respondent No. 4 was master in Economics and had experience of working as an accountant in a private firm. The selection committee considered his suitability and relaxed the experience required for the job. ( 8 ) I do not find any merit in the submissions of Sri Manish Goyal that the First statute of Agra university were applicable to all the employee of Krishi Vigyan Kendra. These posts were sanctioned under the scheme and were provided with a separate channel of promotions. Paragraph 7 of the scheme, did not invite the application of First Statute either by reference or by incorporation. Clause 7 of the scheme, annexed as Annexure-C. A. 1, also provides for qualifications and relaxation where a candidate has long and rich experience. These posts were sanctioned under the scheme and were provided with a separate channel of promotions. Paragraph 7 of the scheme, did not invite the application of First Statute either by reference or by incorporation. Clause 7 of the scheme, annexed as Annexure-C. A. 1, also provides for qualifications and relaxation where a candidate has long and rich experience. Competence in reading, writing and speaking in the local language was recommended as additional qualification. The object and purpose of the scheme, is to modernize agriculture for rural development. It has provided different qualifications for the posts sanctioned under the scheme. The fact that the scheme continued for a long time, does not give its employee claim for permanency in employment. The managing committee was required to consider the qualification and experience in accordance with the object and purpose of the scheme. For the same reasons, I also find the post of Head Clerk cum-Accountant could be filled by direct recruitment. ( 9 ) SRI Goyal made a vain attempt to allege mala fides against the Principal and Dr. M. P. Singh, a scientist working in Indian Council of Agriculture Research. He relied upon a letter written by the Principal to Dr. M. P. Singh, to recommend a suitable person for the post. This does not go to show that Sri Sanjeev Loomba was recommended by Dr. M. P. Singh, or that the selections suffered with by bias. Dr. M. P. Singh, has not been impleaded as party respondent, to the writ petition. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. . .