JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : The petitioner calls in question the decision of the Syndicate dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure-14) and the consequential office order dated 17.7.2002 of the Berhampur University canceling the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Reader and reverting him to his former post of Lecturer (Senior Scale)with immediate effect and prays for quashing the said orders. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Lecturer in P.G. Department of Political Science of Berhampur University (hereinafter called ‘the University’) by order dated 20.11.1985 and was confirmed in the said post by office order dated 3.10.1988. Pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-4) issued by the University inviting applications for different posts including one post of Reader in Political Science, the petitioner made an application for such appointment. The case of the petitioner along with other such applicants was considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Read¬er. The Syndicate having accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Registrar vide D.O. Letter No.8424 dated 17.7.1993 (Annexure-5) sent the Office. Order of the same date appointing him temporarily as a Reader in the P.G. Department of Political Science consequent upon adjustment of Dr. J. K. Mohapa¬tra under Personal Promotion Scheme (Annexure-6). The petitioner joined the post and was confirmed by office order dated 3.5.1997 (Annexure-7) w.e.f. 19.7.1995. While continuing as such, the Registrar by letter dated 23.4.2002 intimated him that he is allowed to continue as a Reader against vacant post of Professor temporarily and would be absorbed in regular post of Reader w.e.f. 1.7.2003. But on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that Dr. J. K. Mohapatra, who was earlier promoted to the post of Reader against the regular vacancy, was adjusted in the post under Merit Promotion Scheme and since such adjustment was ob¬jected to by the Government and the Chancellor, Dr. Mohapatra, having been brought back to the regular vacancy, he is being adjusted in the vacant post of a Professor. According to the petitioner, the post of Professor that was lying vacant was an open post available to be filled up by open advertisement, but since 1999, the post having not been filled up, the petitioner as well as one J.N. Mohanty was eligible to come over to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. According to the petitioner, the post of Professor that was lying vacant was an open post available to be filled up by open advertisement, but since 1999, the post having not been filled up, the petitioner as well as one J.N. Mohanty was eligible to come over to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. The adjustment accord¬ing to the petitioner was not unjust or illegal. But the Registrar in his letter dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure-9) has intimated rever¬sion of the petitioner to his former post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) with immediate effect. Hence this writ petition. 3. Opposing the writ petition, the opposite parties in their counter affidavit have pleaded that the adjustment of Dr. J. K. Mohapatra as against the post of a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme having been found to be illegal and contrary to the U.G.C. guidelines and he having been reverted back to his regular post of a Reader, the petitioner had to be reverted back to his own post since he was otherwise not selected nor recom¬mended by the Selection Committee in accordance with law. Accord¬ing to the University, there were only four sanction posts of Reader in the Department of Political Science and following were holding those posts being appointed on the basis of open adver¬tisement through direct recruitment. Sl. No. Name Date of Joining Order No./Date 1. Dr. J. K. Baral 22.6.1977 3783/20.6.1977 2. Dr. S. K. Padhy 10.9.1984 11667/10.9.1984 3. Dr. J.K. Mohapatra 11.9.1986 12315/10.9.1986 4. Dr. J. N. Mohanty 17.7.1993 8426/17.7.1993 4. The University has taken the stand that the Merit Promotion Scheme (M.P.S.) was introduced by the University Grants Commission (herein after called the ‘U.G.C.’), which was accepted by the Government and the University. The teachers in the University Departments engaged in advanced teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition were eligible to be considered for merit promotion in the first instance after completion of 8 years and their con¬tinuous service in their respective cadre of which at least four years she is required to be in the institution where he/she would be considered for such assessment or merit promotion. The merit promotion is to be given by the appointing authority to a teacher only on recommendation of a Selection Committee duly constituted in accordance with the U.G.C. guidelines. The merit promotion is to be given by the appointing authority to a teacher only on recommendation of a Selection Committee duly constituted in accordance with the U.G.C. guidelines. Under the U.G.C. guide¬lines, while final selection of persons to be promoted can be made by the University in accordance with its normal procedure, it would be necessary to refer to the work like research, publica¬tions, books reviews, curriculum development, teaching aides, innovation in teaching methods and equipment development etc. presented by the individual teachers to at least to two referees in the subject/discipline concerned for evaluation. The post of Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme which is given to a Lec¬turer would be personal to the incumbent concerned. However, in violation of the guidelines, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.1.1991 vide Resolution No.12 decided to adjust Dr. J. K. Mohapatra, as an appointee under Merit Promotion Scheme, even though he was already holding the regular post of Reader through direct and open recruitment process. Dr. Mohapatra was appointed by open advertisement to a regular post of Reader in the Depart¬ment of Political Science and, therefore, there was no occasion for adjustment/promotion of Dr. Mohapatra as a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme, inasmuch as Dr. Mohapatra who was thought of being adjusted under the Merit Promotion Scheme was not hold¬ing the post Lecturer to be eligible for promotion under the scheme nor there was any selection in accordance with the U.G.C. guidelines for the purpose. Therefore, the Syndicate could not have taken such decision to adjust him under the Merit Promotion Scheme and such decision was, therefore, ab initio void. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.11.1992 (Annex¬ure-4), the Selection Committee was constituted which met on 14.6.1993 and prepared a merit list of three candidates in order of merit, namely, Dr. J. N. Mohanty, Dr. A. K. Parichha and Dr. M. Gaan. The Committee recommended that Dr. Parichha, the peti¬tioner should be appointed as a Reader by creating an additional post or to adjust both Dr. Parichha and Dr. Gaan in the vacancy that might arise in the succeeding year. Such recommendation, according to the University, is beyond the scope of the Selection Committee and the advertisement which stipulated for filling up one vacancy in the post of Reader. The decision of the Syndicate dated 13.7.1993 authorizing the Vice-Chancellor to take steps to appoint Dr. Parichha and Dr. Gaan in the vacancy that might arise in the succeeding year. Such recommendation, according to the University, is beyond the scope of the Selection Committee and the advertisement which stipulated for filling up one vacancy in the post of Reader. The decision of the Syndicate dated 13.7.1993 authorizing the Vice-Chancellor to take steps to appoint Dr. Parichha, the petitioner in the subsequent vacancy was illegal and unauthorized, since there was no vacancy in the post of Reader. Dr. J. N. Mohanty having been appointed to the only vacancy available, there was no regular vacancy in the post of Reader. Under Statute 4(3) of the Orisa Universities First Statutes 1990 (hereinafter called ‘the Statute’), the Registrar is required to place before the Syndicate a statement showing the post of Teacher lying vacant and request for selection of experts for each such post. In view of the illegal decision of the Syndi¬cate, Dr. Mohapatra was shown to have been adjusted under the Merit Promotion Scheme and Dr. Parichha was appointed as a Reader in the purported vacancy caused due to adjustment of Dr. Mohapa¬tra. Under the Merit Promotion Scheme, a Lecturer who gets promoted as a Reader does not fill up any actual vacancy since the promotion is personal and when such person retires or leaves the service for one reason or the other, the post of a Lecturer, not the post of Reader, falls vacant. Dr. J. K. Mohapatra having already been appointed as a Reader on open advertisement and selection, on his adjustment under the Merit Promotion Scheme no post of Reader was available for promotion of the petitioner. However, when the proposal for fixation of the pay of Dr. Mohapatra was considered by the Government in its meeting held on 17.4.2002, the entire matter came to light and the irregularities and illegalities have been rectified by the University by appropriately adjusting the petitioner in his former post of Lecturer (Senior Scale). Dr. J. K. Mohapatra having come back to his original post of Reader, there was no post of Reader available for the petitioner to con¬tinue. 6. The undisputed fact that emerges from the pleadings of the parties and materials on record is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science on 20th November, 1985 and confirmed by order dated 3.10.1988 w.e.f. 21.11.1987. 6. The undisputed fact that emerges from the pleadings of the parties and materials on record is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science on 20th November, 1985 and confirmed by order dated 3.10.1988 w.e.f. 21.11.1987. The petitioner was placed in senior scale of pay by office order dated 12.7.1991 (Annexure-3) w.e.f. 21.4.1990. The University issued advertisement inviting applications for one post of Reader in Political Science alongwith some other posts in advertisement dated 6.11.1992 (Annexure-4). The Selection Committee constituted by the University met on 14.6.1993 and prepared a list of three candidates in order of merit placing Dr. J. N. Mohanty at Sl. No.1 of the merit list and Dr. A. K. Parichha, the petitioner,and Dr. M. Gaan at Sl. No.2 and 3 respectively and recommended that additional posts be created to appoint the petitioner Dr. Parich¬ha and Dr. Gaan who were at Sl. Nos. and 3 of the merit list or they be adjusted in a vacancy that might arise in the coming year. The Syndicate of the University took a resolution on 13.7.1993 accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee and appointed Dr. J. N. Mohanty to the lone post of Reader. However, since no other vacancy was available, the Syndicate authorized the Vice Chancellor to appoint Dr. Parichha, the petitioner, in the next vacancy. In office order dated 17.7.1993, Dr. Mohapatra who was appointed as a Reader in Political Science through open advertisement as long back as on 11.9.1986 against a regular permanent vacancy and was confirmed by order dated 11.9.1988 was shown to have been adjusted under the Merit Promo¬tion Scheme to accommodate the petitioner and he was appointed as a Reader as against the purported vacancy caused due to adjust¬ment of Dr. Mohapatra in a post under the Merit Promotion Scheme. 7. In Annexure-4 dated 6.11.1992, the University invited applications for several posts including one post of Reader in Political Science. The petitioner along with others applied for the post, but the Selection Committee recommended Dr. J. N. Mohanty as No.1 in the select list for appointment and he was appointed to the post of Reader. 7. In Annexure-4 dated 6.11.1992, the University invited applications for several posts including one post of Reader in Political Science. The petitioner along with others applied for the post, but the Selection Committee recommended Dr. J. N. Mohanty as No.1 in the select list for appointment and he was appointed to the post of Reader. The University having advertised for one post of Reader and constituted a Selection Committee in terms of Statute-4(4), the Selection Committee was authorized to recommend one name but, however, it recommended three names in order of merit with a note to create an additional post for accommodating Dr. Parichha or to accommodate Dr. Parichha and Dr. Gaan in the vacancy to be caused during the next year. The Selec¬tion Committee clearly transgressed its jurisdiction not only in recommending three names, in the order of merit, but in recom¬mending that one additional post should be created to appoint Dr. Parichha, the petitioner, who was placed at No.2 in the merit list or to accommodate both of them in the vacancies that are likely to because during the next year. The recommendation to that effect was unauthorized and illegal. The Syndicate committed gross illegality in authorizing the Vice Chancellor to appoint Dr. Parichha, the petitioner in the vacancy, while there was no existing vacancy. It is the settled position of law that a Selec¬tion Committee on its own is not authorized to recommend the names of more persons than they are required to recommend. The appointments against subsequent vacancies, on the basis of such selection and recommendation is illegal, since that would deprive candidates, who are not eligible for appointment to the post on the last date of submission of the application mentioned in the advertisement and who become eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment against the subsequent post. In view of the specific provision of Chapter II of Part-II of the Statute read with Section 21(2), the vacancy/vacancies in the post of teachers in various grades are to be filled up on the recommenda¬tion of the Selection Committee for each such post. This view finds support from the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh V. State of Haryana and others; 1993(5) SLR 37. This view finds support from the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh V. State of Haryana and others; 1993(5) SLR 37. The Syndicate, therefore, could not have authorized the vice Chancel¬lor to appoint the petitioner in the subsequent vacancy after it had already appointed Dr. J. N. Mohanty as a Reader, whose name found place at serial No.1 in the merit list as per the recommen¬dation of the Selection Committee. There was no vacancy in the post of Reader to which the petitioner could have been appointed. 8. The apex Court, in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava V. Vikram University and others; AIR 1995 SC 1694 , while considering the scope of fixation of seniority in respect of teachers in differ¬ent grades appointed on Merit Promotion Scheme or Career Advance¬ment vis-a-vis the teachers appointed on direct recruitment basis has held that with effect from 1.1.1986 because of the Career Advancement Scheme introduced by the Central Government, the erstwhile Merit Promotion Scheme providing for uniform pay scale then available to the directly recruited Readers/Professors as well as the merit promoted Professors/Readers was given a go-bye and under the Career Advancement Scheme, uniform revised pay scales were provided for Readers and Professors/ with a rider that those existing teachers in Universities and Colleges, who gave in writing to be governed by the Merit Promotion Scheme, even thereafter would get the benefit of that scheme for being promoted to the post of Professor and Readers, as the case may be, but their pay scale would be lower as comparable to the pay scale of directly recruited Professors and Readers. It was fur¬ther held that unless the University Act is amended under which the Universities are functioning by suitable amendments providing for an additional source of recruitment of Readers and Professors by way of departmental promotions mere adoption of Merit Promo¬tion Scheme recommended by the Commission or mere decision of the Co-ordination or the Executive Committee not to discriminate between the merit promoters and direct recruit university teach¬ers and even issuance of ordinate or statues to the effect would be of no avail and will not have any legal effect nor would be try they permit the Universities concerned to fuse the cadre employee with ex cadre employees to prepare a combined seniority list on that basis. The directly recruited Readers and Professors are recruited pursuant to the only source of appointment contem¬plated by Section 49 that is by way of direct recruitment. The promotee Readers and Professors are appointed not in the cadre posts but under an entirely different scheme, namely Merit Promotion Scheme. Even under this scheme, no posts as such are created. The promotions given to them are purely personal and the posts to which they are upgraded do not survive their service career. The posts vanish with the incumbent person like the shadow vanishing with the substance. Such a promote fills up no vacancy in the promotional avenue since no post is available by promotion. It was further held that the directly recruited Readers and Professors were recruited pursuant to the only source of appointment contemplated by Section 49 that is by way of direct recruitment. The promotee Professors and Readers do not hold any officiating or even temporary post of Reader or Professor nor is there any temporary addition to the cadre strength of Readers and Professors. 9. In the case at hand, appointments to the post of teach¬ers of the University are made in accordance with Section 21(2) read with Statutes 4 and 258 of the Statutes and the appointments are made to each post of Lecturer, Reader and Professor through open advertisement and not by way of promotion. The promotions contemplated under the different U.G.C. schemes are made in ac¬cordance with the same itself and they do not fill any cadre post. The Syndicate therefore could not have adjusted or shown Dr. J. K. Mohapatra as a promotee under the Merit Promotion Scheme, because he was already holding the post of a Reader by way of direct recruitment since 11.9.1986 and confirmed in the post since 11.9.1988. Under the Merit Promotion Scheme or Person¬al Promotion Scheme, a Senior Lecturer is eligible for considera¬tion for promotion in terms of the scheme formulated by the U.G.C. accepted by the Government and adopted by the University and therefore a Reader like Dr. Mohapatra who was already holding a post of Reader could not have been adjusted nor shown to have been adjusted against such a post. There was also no selection for either merit promotion scheme or personal promotion scheme nor was there any recommendation by a duly constituted Selection Committee for promoting Dr. Mohapatra on the Merit Promotion Scheme. Dr. Mohapatra who was already holding a post of Reader could not have been adjusted nor shown to have been adjusted against such a post. There was also no selection for either merit promotion scheme or personal promotion scheme nor was there any recommendation by a duly constituted Selection Committee for promoting Dr. Mohapatra on the Merit Promotion Scheme. Dr. Mohapatra could not otherwise have been considered for promotion since he was holding the post of a Reader. 10. The decision of the Syndicate to adjust Dr. J. K. Moha¬patra as a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme was illegal and arbitrary, perhaps, solely for the purpose of somehow adjust¬ing the petitioner in the purported vacancy caused due to adjust¬ment of Dr. Mohapatra under the Personal promotion Scheme. Even otherwise also on promotion of an incumbent under the Merit Promotion Scheme or the Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme, the post from which one is promoted does not fall vacant and only when the promotee retires or relinquishes his job, such post becomes vacant. The entire exercise done by the Syndicate with the view to adjust the petitioner therefore was thoroughly misconceived in law, illegal and arbitrary and by such decision no post of Reader in Political Science remained vacant for appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner’s ap¬pointment to a non-existing post of Reader therefore was void and the petitioner does not acquire a vested right to hold such post.In any event the mistake has been corrected by the interven¬tion of the Chancellor under Section 5(10) and the order of the State Government. Dr. J. K. Mohapatra having been brought over to his original post of Reader, the petitioner had to be brought back or reverted back to his substantive post of Lecturer in the senior scale and no illegality has been committed by the Univer¬sity in rectifying its mistakes. The appointment of the petition¬er to the post of Reader as a direct recruit was ex facie illegal since there was no post of Reader on notional adjustment of Dr. Mohapatra as a promotee under the Merit Promotion Scheme. No vacancy was created in the post of Reader by such notional ad¬justment. The promotee Readers or Professors are not appointed to a cadre post as no such posts are created. 11. Mohapatra as a promotee under the Merit Promotion Scheme. No vacancy was created in the post of Reader by such notional ad¬justment. The promotee Readers or Professors are not appointed to a cadre post as no such posts are created. 11. The apex Court in Rama Chandra Tripathi V. U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV and others 1994(2) SLR 27, when considering the case as to whether while correcting the mistakes in confirming the incumbent in the post, the incumbent has a right to be given an opportunity of being heard, held that the order of confirmation was per se illegal and in violation of the order of injunction passed by the High Court and the same being invalid was got to be correct in any event and therefore in such circum¬stances, the incumbent was not required to be given any opportu¬nity of being heard for correcting such mistakes,because there was no occasion to take one view or the other in the matter of correction of the mistake on the basis of the representation to be made by the appellant. The appointment of the petitioner being per se illegal, that too to a non-existing post, the petitioner cannot complain of having not been given an opportunity of hear¬ing. The decision of the Selection Committee recommending for creation of a post to adjust the petitioner in such post while recommending his case at Sl. No.2 of the merit list and otherwise recommending to adjust him in the vacancy in the future year is per se illegal and consequently, the decision of the Syndicate in accepting such recommendation and finding out a way to appoint the petitioner in a vacancy purported or notionally created by illegally adjusting a regular direct recruit Reader to the post of a promotee Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme was illegal and void. The petitioner therefore, did not acquire any vested right to hold the post of a Reader which was non-existent. There¬fore, the impugned decision of the Syndicate in reverting him to his original post, the holder of that post having been brought back from the post of promotee Reader in terms of the direction of the Chancellor and the State Government cannot be faulted. 12. In any view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order and ac¬cordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 12. In any view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order and ac¬cordingly the writ petition is dismissed. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.