Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing a portion of Advertisement No. 1 of 1999 (Annexure-5) whereby the applications had been invited for appointment to the post of Talkie Operator. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make appointment to the post of Talkie Operator in pursuance of the Advertisement No, 2/98 (Annexure-3). 2. It seems that the casual employees holding Class III and Class IV posts working in the Rajendra Agriculture University, hereinafter referred to as the University, filed applications for regularisation of their services. Ultimately, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court giving rise to Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18694 of 1994. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 18.2.1988 (Annexure-2), gave the following direction. "So far as Class IV posts are concerned regular appointment against available vacancies for regular sanctioned Post under the Bihar State Agricultural Universities Act should be made by appointing the casual employees who have worked in the Rajendra Agricultural University for more than 15 years against 35% of available vacancies provided such employees have requisite qualification for regular appointment and they are also physically fit for permanent absorption. In respect of balance 65% vacancies, invitation of applications by advertisement by following the usual procedure for filling up the vacancy in the University services should be made. The casual employees of the Rajendra Agricultural University who will not be absorbed against 35% reserved quota as indicated hereinbefore will be entitled to apply for the said 65% posts. The following criteria will be followed for selection against the 65% posts. For each year of completed service of the casual employees, 2% marks will be given for their experience upto the maximum of 30%. For educational and others qualifications as laid down in he advertisement, 50% marks would be given and 20% marks will be allotted on the basis of performance in the interview. It is clarified that for the casual employees year of completed service will mean, by ignoring artificial break, 240 days of service in a year. There will be relaxation of age upto50 years in the case of casual employees saving the Rajendra Agricultural University in the State of Bihar and appointment will be given provided such employees are physically fit for regular absorption. There will be relaxation of age upto50 years in the case of casual employees saving the Rajendra Agricultural University in the State of Bihar and appointment will be given provided such employees are physically fit for regular absorption. The same principle will also be followed for filling up the Class III posts after giving the same relaxation of age. The casual employees who will not be absorbed either against 35% of reserved quota or balance 65% vacancies as indicated above will be disengaged from the services after exercise of selection process is completed. Such exercise should be taken up as early as practicable and the selection process should be completed within a period of six months from today." 3. In the light of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the University published Advertisement No. 2/98 (Annexure-3) inviting application from general market for filling up the 65% vacant posts including the post of Talkie Operator. The qualification prescribed for appointment to post of Talkie Operator is matriculation and certificates for running electrically operated equipments in the college of the University. Petitioner, besides other persons, offered his candidature. It seems that in the aforesaid advertisement, the mandatory qualification required under the provisions of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder was not incorporated and when the said fact came to the notice of the Chancellor of the University, he wrote to the Vice Chancellor that process for appointment to the post of Talkie Operator must proceed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and in the selection process the provisions of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act and Rules framed thereunder be strictly adhered to. The aforesaid direction was given on the following terms. "It has been brought to the notice of the Hon ble Chancellor that as per terms and conditions of the Advertisement No. 2/98, applications for appointment of Talkie Operator in Bihar Veterinary College, Patna under the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur) were invited and qualification was also prescribed for the said post i.e in accordance with the Bihar Cinema Act, 1974 and rules framed thereunder particularly Rule 22. It has been brought to the kind notice of the Hon ble Chancellor that neither the interview has been conducted nor the selection is likely to be made in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Bihar Cinema Act, 1974. It has been brought to the kind notice of the Hon ble Chancellor that neither the interview has been conducted nor the selection is likely to be made in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Bihar Cinema Act, 1974. On the other hand, those who are near and dear to the authorities concerned are being favoured." 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents University did not proceed with the direction given by the Chancellor of the University, but came, out with another advertisement bearing No. 1 of 1999 in which besides the post of Talkie Operator other posts were also advertised and restricted to the casual employees of the respondent University. In this advertisement, the educational qualification prescribed was certificate granted by the District Magistrate under the provisions of Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act. According to the University, it had come out with the new advertisement as nobody was found eligible in terms of the earlier advertisement. 5. Be that as it may, in the present case, the decision on this issue is not relevant as the grievances of the petitioner is that the said post ought not to have been included in the second advertisement which is restricted to the casual employees only as no casual employee is working on the said post of Talkie Operator. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as no casual employee is working on the post of Talkie Operator, the said posts ought not to have been included in Advertisement No. 1/99 which is restricted to the causal employees working in the University. 6. Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the University very fairly states that as no casual employee qualified for the post of Talkie Operator is working, the respondent University shall come out with another advertisement for filling up the said post from open market. As the respondent University is not going to fill up the vacancy of Talkie Operator in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/99, the grievance made by the petitioner to that extent does not survive. 7. However, Mr, Shahi contends that respondent No. 3 may be directed to make appointment in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2 of 1998. According to the petitioner himself, the said advertisement did not contain the mandatory statutory qualification. 7. However, Mr, Shahi contends that respondent No. 3 may be directed to make appointment in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2 of 1998. According to the petitioner himself, the said advertisement did not contain the mandatory statutory qualification. As there was no mention of mandatory qualification required for appointment to the post of Talkie Operator, the prayer made by the petitioner to make appointment on the basis of such an advertisement, is not fit to be granted. 8. As the respondent University has decided to advertise the post of Talkie Operator and to fill up the same from open market, I deem it expedient that the advertisement in accordance with law be published within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the process of appointment be completed within a period of six months. If for any reason, the respondent University shall not be in a position to complete the process of selection within the time stipulated, it shall be at liberty to ask for extension of time, otherwise any deviation in carrying out the direction within the time stipulated shall be viewed seriously. 9. Application stands disposed off with the direction aforesaid.