Judgment P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.03.1996 passed by Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, whereby respondent no. 4 had been declared senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the statute 18.10(c) of the Statutes of Meerut University, as null, void, unconstitutional, and inoperative. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Commerce Department in the S.M.J.N. Post Graduate College, Haridwar was established in the year 1985. The Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as Temporary Lecturer for the welfare of the students vide Appointment Letter dated 13.7.1985 on ad hoc basis in the Faculty of Commerce till the approval by the Meerut University. In the year 1992, the petitioner also passed M.A. (Economics). The petitioner was also awarded Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the year 1992, and as such, according to the petitioner, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in any Degree College. The petitioner has publiscation work in his credit including the texts namely, (i) Book-Business Economics and (ii) Managerial Economics. 3. Subsequently, the College and Department in question were got approved by the Meerut University on 18.2.1996. Therefore, the post was advertised in the newspapers, namely, The Navbharat Times, The Pioneer and Punjab Kesari and on the basis of the same, various persons applied for the post in question. These persons appeared before the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee found the petitioner as the most suitable person for the post of Lecturer in Commerce. The said recommendation of the Selection Committee was duly accepted by the Managing Committee of the Institution in question. Therefore, Manager of the Institution issued Appointment order/letter to the petitioner, appointing him on temporary basis upto 30.6.1986, or till the time a regular selection is made by the Commission, vide appointment letter dated 22.2.1986. The Vice Chancellor of the University also accorded his approval communicated by the Registrar vide his letter dated 18/19 February, 1996. 4. Thereafter, various approval letters were issued by the University from time to time and the petitioner was regularly paid his salary without any break. The petitioner was also given senior pay scale on completion of his Ph.D. In the year 1992, by the Director of Education, vide his letter dt. 01.12.1995. 4. Thereafter, various approval letters were issued by the University from time to time and the petitioner was regularly paid his salary without any break. The petitioner was also given senior pay scale on completion of his Ph.D. In the year 1992, by the Director of Education, vide his letter dt. 01.12.1995. The work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. The petitioner was also asked to continue in view of creation of two posts of Lecturers in the year 1987, which were made permanent in the year 1990. On account of availability of post, petitioner was allowed to continue on the basis of his initial appointment. After coming into force of 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992, the papers of the petitioner were sent before the Screening/Regularisation Committee for regularisation of the services of the petitioner and his services were duly regularised by the said Committee vide its order dated 23.06.1992. A letter dated 27.07.1992 in this regard was issued to the petitioner by the Committee of Management. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed with effect from 01.07.1993 vide communication dated 30.3.1993 contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition. 5. Respondent no. 4, Dr. Tejveer Singh was initially appointed by the Committee of Management after the selection by the Higher Education Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad in the Institution on 29.05.1989. The services of the respondent no. 4 were also continued by the Manager of the Institution in question vide letter dated 30.09.1991, w.e.f. 30.05.1991. He submitted that the post in question on which the petitioner was working, was notified to U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, and U.P. Higher Education Service Commission in its turn advertised the said post vide Advertisement no. 8 of 1986 and against the said post interview was held in March, 1989 and consequent upon the same, the respondent no. 4 joined his services on substantive basis as Lecturer in Department of Commerce on 30.05.1989. Respondent no. 4 stated that the seniority is to be computed on the basis of length of service in substantive capacity according to clause 18.10 (c) of the First Statute of Meerut University. He submitted against the list prepared by the University the answering respondent has represented and after the decision dt. 02.03.1996 of the Vice Chancellor of Ch. Respondent no. 4 stated that the seniority is to be computed on the basis of length of service in substantive capacity according to clause 18.10 (c) of the First Statute of Meerut University. He submitted against the list prepared by the University the answering respondent has represented and after the decision dt. 02.03.1996 of the Vice Chancellor of Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, the name of answering respondent has been shown over and above the name of the petitioner. He denied that the appeal to the Vice Chancellor was barred by time. Therefore, he prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 provides procedure for appointment of teacher in affiliated or associated colleges with the University. 7. Section 16 of the Act provides for appointment of ad hoc teachers, which is being reproduced hereunder :- "16. Appointment of ad hoc teachers- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 12 and the Commission fails to recommend the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three months from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor. (2) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease with effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post; (b) where the period of two months from the date of receipt of recommendation of the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 12 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. 8. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 was notified under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, which came into force, w.e.f. 4.1.1982. Clause 2 and 3 of Removal of Difficulties Order are being reproduced hereunder: "2. 8. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 was notified under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, which came into force, w.e.f. 4.1.1982. Clause 2 and 3 of Removal of Difficulties Order are being reproduced hereunder: "2. Vacancies In which ad hoc appointment can be made and eligibility for appointment- (1) The Management of a College may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis, in accordance with the provisions of this order, in the vacancies occurring in any of the following manner, namely: (i) creation of a new post; (ii) suspension, removal or dismissal of a teacher; (iii) resignation or death of a teacher; (iv) a teacher going on leave for a period of more than ten months; (v) a teacher proceeding on "teachers fellowship" under any scheme of University Grants Commission or any other body. (2) The candidates to be appointed under paragraph (1) must possess the prescribed minimum qualification. 3. Manner and duration of appointment- Every appointment f a teacher under paragraph 2 shall be made in consultation with an expert, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, and shall cease on the date when the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission recommends a candidate for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980." 9. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983 came into force w.e.f. 29.1.1983. Provisions of clauses 2 and 301 Removal of Difficulties Order are almost same except a slight change that an appointment can also be made on ad hoc basis in the case of retirement of 2 teacher also. 10. Section 30 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or statutes framed thereunder. 11. Section 16 quoted above has been omitted by U.P. Ordinance No. 43 of 1991, which was promulgated by the Governor on November 22, 1991. 10. Section 30 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or statutes framed thereunder. 11. Section 16 quoted above has been omitted by U.P. Ordinance No. 43 of 1991, which was promulgated by the Governor on November 22, 1991. By the same Ordinance new Section 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 has been inserted, which reads as under: "31-C. Regularization of other ad hoc appointments- (1) Any teacher, other than a principal who- (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after Junuary 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 upto the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992; (b) 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) ……….(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). (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 his 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-section (5) and (6) of Section 13 and 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 after 31st March, 1992. (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sub-section (4), the selection committee constituted under sub-section (2), shall in view of the amendments made in clause (b) to (d) of sub-section (1), by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1997 reconsider the case of every teacher who cease to hold appointment under sub-section (4) and if as a result of reconsideration any such teacher is found suitable for substantive appointment, he may be given substantive appointment as provided in sub section (1), and shall be deemed never to have ceased to hold appointment." 12. Thus, ad hoc appointment under section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 was to be made in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982. It is this appointment, which was to be regularised under section 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. 13. Thus, ad hoc appointment under section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 was to be made in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982. It is this appointment, which was to be regularised under section 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement in news papers, namely, Navbharat Times, Pioneer and Punjab Kesari, which has not been denied by the University and he was duly selected by the Selection Committee having nominee of the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983. 14. Now the question falls for consideration as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of initial appointment till the date of his regularization was to be counted for the purposes for reckoning his seniority or it is liable to be ignored in view of provisions of section 18.10 (c) of the 1st Statute of the Meerut University, which provides that the seniority of Principals and teachers of the affiliated colleges shall be determined by the length of continuous service from the date of appointment in substantive capacity. 15. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Dr. M.J. Siddiqui and others, and Dr. C.B. Aggarwal and others Vs. Dr. M.J. Siddiqui and others, reported in (1980) 3 S.C.C., 174, in para no. 11 observed as under: "There does not appear to be any magicai formula or special charm in the word 'substantive'. The mere use of the term 'appointment in a temporary vacancy' by itself would not conclude the matter or lead to the irresistible inference that the appointment was not made in a substantive capacity because even a substantive appointment could be made to a purely temporary vacancy. In order, therefore, to determine the nature of the appointment, we have to look into the heart and substance of the matter, the surrounding circumstances, the mode, the manner and the terms of appointment and other relevant factors." 16. The Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Dass and others Vs. In order, therefore, to determine the nature of the appointment, we have to look into the heart and substance of the matter, the surrounding circumstances, the mode, the manner and the terms of appointment and other relevant factors." 16. The Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Dass and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1980) 4 SCC, 226 gave the meaning of appointment in substantive capacity and held as under: "What, in the context, is a substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a post? In our view, the emphasis imparted by the adjective substantive IS that a thing IS substantive if it is "an essential part or constituent or relating to what is essential". We may describe a capacity as substantive if it has Independent existence" or is of "considerable amount or quantity". What is independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as substantive. Therefore, when a post is vacant however designated in officialese, the capacity in which the person hold~ the post has to be ascertained by the State Substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or character of the post. To approximate to the official diction used in this connection, we may well say that a person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. 17. In the case of G.P. Doval and others Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and others, reported in A.I.R. 1984 SC 1527 Division Bench of the Supreme Court in para 15 observed as under: " ..... In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Dass Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 1 SCR 449 : AIR 1981 SC 41), wherein this Court observed that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncement is that 'officiating service in a post for all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis." 18. State of U.P. (1981) 1 SCR 449 : AIR 1981 SC 41), wherein this Court observed that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncement is that 'officiating service in a post for all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis." 18. In the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 715, in para no. 13, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed as under: " .... The principle for deciding inter se seniority has to confirm to the principles of equality spelt out by Article 14 and 16. If an appointment is made by way of stop gap arrangement, without considering the claims of all the eligible available persons and without followin9 the rules of appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be equated with the experience of regular appointee, because of the qualitative difference in the appointment. To equate the two would be to treat two unequals as equal which would violate the equality clause. But if the appointment is made after considering the claims of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules made for regular substantive appointments, there is no reason to exclude the officiating service for purpose of seniority. Same will be the position of the initial appointment itself is made in accordance with the rules applicable to substantive appointments as in the present case. To hold otherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary. This principle has been followed in innumerable cases and has been further elaborated by this Court in several judgments including those in Baleshwar Dass Vs. State of U.P. and Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee Vs. R.K. Kashyap with which we are in agreement. In Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India, the officers were promoted although without following the procedure prescribed under the rules, but they continuously worked for long period of nearly 15-20 years on the posts without being reverted. The period of their continuous officiation was directed to be counted for seniority as it was held that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16. There is considerable force in this view also. The period of their continuous officiation was directed to be counted for seniority as it was held that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16. There is considerable force in this view also. We, therefore, confirm the principle of counting towards seniority the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the service." 19. In para 47 of the above judgment, the Apex Court concluded authoritatively in clause (B) as under: " ..... (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his services in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted." 20. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Harish Chander Bhatia and others reported in (1995) 2 S.C.C. 48, in para 7, the apex Court observed as under: " ……An officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. Any other view would very seriously prejudice such a service holder who, ever after having rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long period, and that too for proper functioning of the service, would be denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. Any other view is bound to have a demoralizing effect in the service as a whole." 21. The Apex Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. R.K. Tandon and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 616 in para 4 observed as under: ''….. If, however, the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or temporary basis, then the seniority would be counted from the date of initial appointment." 22. The Apex Court in L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur and others reported in (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 287 in para 12 observed as under: " …..The touchstone then is the substantive capacity of the appointment. The Court further held that the substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or character of the post. Even appointment to a temporary post for a long duration would be sufficient to hold that such person was holding the post in a substantive capacity. The Court further held that the substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or character of the post. Even appointment to a temporary post for a long duration would be sufficient to hold that such person was holding the post in a substantive capacity. A person shall be held to be holding a post in a substantive capacity when he is found to be not holding the post for indefinite period." 23. In para 15 of the aforesaid judgment, the apex Court observed as under: "It is now well settled that even in cases of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list, Where the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved lateron, the approval would mean his confirmation by the authority and shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to length of continuous officiation. In this regard, we fortify our view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval Vs. Chief Secretary Government of U.P." 24. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 25 considered the dictionary meaning of "ad hoc", "stop gap" and "fortuitous" terms and conclusively laid down the law thus: "In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc". In this view of the matter, the reasoning and basis on which the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the case in hand was held by the High Court to be "fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap" are wholly erroneous and, therefore, exclusion of those appointees to have their continuous length of service for seniority is erroneous." 25. In Dr. In Dr. Chandra Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710 the Apex Court upheld that the seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial ad hoc appointment, which was approved by appropriate authority i.e. Governor relying on the case of Rudra Kumar Sain Vs. Union of India (Supra). 26. To sum up, in the case of Baleshwar Dass Vs. State of U.P. (Supra), the apex Court has held that a person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradiction to a person who holds it for a definite period. The Apex Court has categorically held in G.P. Doval and others Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and others (supra) that a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if stop gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Supra), the Apex Court has confirmed the principle of counting towards seniority, the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules for regular substantive appointment in the service. In State of U.P. and others Vs. R.K. Tandon and others (Supra), the Apex Court has held that if the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or temporary basis, then the seniority would be counted from the date of initial appointment. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has held that a person who possesses requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be stop gap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc". In view of above cited case law, we are of the view that the above authorities apply to the facts of the present case and petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his past services rendered as lecturer in S.M.J.N. Post Graduate College, Haridwar. 27. In view of above cited case law, we are of the view that the above authorities apply to the facts of the present case and petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his past services rendered as lecturer in S.M.J.N. Post Graduate College, Haridwar. 27. In the present case the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1985 by the Selection Committee constituted according to the Removal of Difficulties Order under U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. Thereafter, when the Department of Commerce was approved by the Meerut University on 18.02.1986, post was advertised in news papers and various persons applied for the post in question. The Selection Committee, which recommended the name of the petitioner as temporary ad hoc lecturer was duly constituted Selection Committee, in which one nominee was nominated by the Vice Chancellor. The Selection Committee found the petitioner most suitable candidate and the petitioner was allowed to continue and his services were regularized vide order dated 27.07.1992 even after joining of the respondent no. 4, who joined in the year 1989. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the services rendered by the petitioner as lecturer for sufficiently long period w.e.f. 15th July 1985, which were subsequently regularized vide order dated 27.07.1992 (Annexure 10), cannot be excluded in determining the seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, the past services rendered by the petitioner till his regularization must be counted for reckoning his seniority. Thus, the order dated 20.01.1994 passed by the Principal, S.M.J.N. Post Graduate College, Haridwar is liable to be sustained. The Vice Chancellor of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University has wrongly set aside the order of the Principal and therefore, his order dated 02.03.1996 contained in Annexure 18 of the writ petition is liable to be quashed. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for the prayer-B, therefore, writ petition is dismissed in so far as it relates to this relief. 29. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 02.03.1996 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (respondent no. 1) contained in Annexure 18 of the writ petition is hereby quashed. The order of the Principal, S.M.J.N. P.G. College, Haridwar dated 20.01.1994 contained in Annexure 14 to the writ petition is hereby affirmed. The petitioner will be held senior to the respondent no. 4. 30. 1) contained in Annexure 18 of the writ petition is hereby quashed. The order of the Principal, S.M.J.N. P.G. College, Haridwar dated 20.01.1994 contained in Annexure 14 to the writ petition is hereby affirmed. The petitioner will be held senior to the respondent no. 4. 30. No order as to costs.