N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 5. 1. 2007 issued by first respondent vide Annexure-A as the same is illegal and contrary to law and facts, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a candidate as Director of the Institute in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of 1998. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, second respondent has been appointed as Director of the Karnataka state Sericulture Research and Development Institute (in short institute) for the period of five years on 24. 2. 2001. After the expiry of the said period of five years, once again, he has been continued as director of the sard Institute until further orders, by notification dated 23. 2. 2006. Be that as it may. The first respondent herein has issued notification dated 3. 5. 2006 vide Annexure-D, cancelling the notification issued on 23. 2. 2006 continuing the 2nd respondent in the post of Director of the Institute and appointed the Commissioner for sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge director of the said Institute. When things stood thus, first respondent has issued the impugned Notification dated 5. 1. 2007, continuing second respondent as the Director of the said Institute. The said notification issued by the first respondent is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The relevant provision of Cadre and recruitment Regulations stipulates for appointment of a candidate below aged of 50 years as Director of the Institute by direct recruitment by calling for applications. Without following the said procedure, first respondent has continued the second respondent as the Director of the said Institute vide Notification dated 5. 1. 2007 and contrary to the existing Regulations as on the date of issuing the said notification. Therefore, assailing the correctness of Annexure-A and seeking appropriate direction as referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned notification issued by first respondent continuing second respondent as the Director of karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Institute. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned notification issued by first respondent continuing second respondent as the Director of karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute is contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Institute. According to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Institute, candidate has to be appointed by direct recruitment by calling for applications and one of the criteria is, a candidate should have five years experience in programming and directing research at higher level and age limit is fixed 50 years. In the instant case, second respondent is not eligible as per his age and first respondent has committed a grave error, much less illegality in issuing notification, specifically stating that second respondent has been continued as director till regular appointment has been made, without reference to the earlier notification dated 3. 5. 2006, wherein the services of second respondent has been discontinued and the Commissioner for sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture has been appointed as In-charge Director of the Institute and also without adhering the upper age limit as held by the Apex Court and this Court in similar matters. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that, appointment of second respondent in the guise of continuing him as Director of the Institute is contrary to law and it blocks the career prospects of the petitioner, who is fully qualified to be appointed as Director of the Institute according to Cadre and recruitment Regulations and therefore, the impugned notification issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-A as referred above is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) FURTHER learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent during the course of his submission regarding continuation of service of the earlier director for two terms as per Annexures-8 and 9 has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Further, he quickly submitted pointing out that, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent during the course of his submission on the latest amendment for the recruitment of Director vide Government order dated 9th February 2007 bearing no. Further, he quickly submitted pointing out that, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent during the course of his submission on the latest amendment for the recruitment of Director vide Government order dated 9th February 2007 bearing no. CI 36:slk:2006 has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, since the instant writ petition is filed by petitioner on 8th january 2007 assailing the correctness of the impugned notification issued by the first appointing the second respondent as the Director. ( 5 ) PER contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the impugned notification issued by the first respondent, continuing the second respondent as Director. Further he submitted that the said temporary arrangement is made till the regular appointment has been made to the said post as per the existing Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. Further, he submitted that second respondent has the requisite qualification and earlier he has been served as Director for one term of five years and thereafter he has been continued for further three months as Director having regard to his requisite qualification and eligibility till making alternative arrangement. Instead of appointing the second respondent till alternative arrangement is made, the wording used in Annexure-A is "stoodd^q^u^nd" and it cannot take away the purpose for which he has been appointed on temporary basis. Further, he submitted that this fact has been clearly pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent in his objection that, second respondent has been appointed on adhoc basis till necessary proceedings are initiated and completed for appointing the regular Director within a period of three months. In the light of the said statement made by the first respondent in the objections, learned senior Counsel appearing for second respondent has submitted that, interference by this Court, at this stage is not justifiable since only an alternative arrangement has been made by Government in the interest of carrying out instrumentality in the administration of the Institute having regard to his experience. Further, he submitted that, in pursuance of the latest amendment to the qualification and experience, the age limit has been fixed at below 50 years for external candidates and below 55 years as on the date on which the post of Director became vacant in respect of internal candidates only. Further, he submitted that, in pursuance of the latest amendment to the qualification and experience, the age limit has been fixed at below 50 years for external candidates and below 55 years as on the date on which the post of Director became vacant in respect of internal candidates only. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that, second respondent is not eligible cannot be taken into consideration and such a plea cannot be entertained nor the petitioner has got locusstandie to maintain this writ petition and hence, it is liable to be dismissed at threshold. ( 6 ) FURTHER, learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent has placed reliance on Annexures-8 and 9, to substantiate his submission. But the same has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent has submitted that, the impugned arrangement has been made continuing the second respondent as Director only in the interest of carrying out instrumentality in the administration of the Institute and now the Government has taken a decision to constitute the Selection committee for selection of a suitable candidate for the Post of Director of the Institute as per Cadre and Recruitment Regulations and the said process will be completed within three months. If petitioner found eligible as per Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, his case will be considered, if he appears before the Committee and the temporary arrangement made by the first respondent does not block the career and prospects of the petitioner or any other eligible candidate as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Nor it take away the petitioner's claim for the post of Director. Therefore, learned additional Government Advocate has submitted that, petitioner has not made out any valid grounds to interfere in the impugned Notification issued by the first respondent continuing the service of the second respondent as the Director of the Institute. ( 8 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned counsel appearing for second respondent and learned additional Government Advocate for first respondent and after careful evaluation of the entire materials available on record and in the light of the stand taken by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: whether the impugned Notification issued by first respondent on 5. 1. 1. 2007 vide Annexure-A is sustainable in law? ( 9 ) AFTER careful perusal of the impugned Notification issued by first respondent vide Annexure- A dated 5. 1. 2007, it emerges from the contents of the Notification that, first respondent has committed a grave error, much less material irregularity in issuing the said notification contrary to the relevant materials available on file. It is significant to note that, first respondent had earlier issued the notification dated 3. 5. 2006 vide Annexure-D, appointing the commissioner for Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge Director of the Institute, until further orders. When the commissioner was discharging his duty as In-charge Director of the said Institute, without any justification, first respondent has proceeded to appoint second respondent as Director for third time. Earlier second respondent has been appointed for a period of five years and after the expiry of the said period, he has been continued as In-charge director, until further orders as per Annexure-C dated 23. 2. 2006. Thereafter, first respondent has issued a Notification dated 3. 5. 2006 vide Annexure-D cancelling the notification dated 23. 2. 2006 continuing the second respondent in the post of Director of the Institute and appointed the Commissioner for Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge Director of the Institute. When the commissioner was discharging his duties, first respondent has issued the impugned Notification, continuing the second respondent as the director of the Institute. It is crystal clear from the contents of the impugned Notification that, the services of the second respondent has been continued until further orders. The wording used in the notification cannot be taken lightly, for the reason that, second respondent has been dis- continued as Director as per the Notification issued by the first respondent dated 3. 5. 2006 vide Annexure-D and he is working as sub-ordinate in the Institute. The stand taken by first respondent in the objection is that In-charge arrangement has been made only in the interest of carrying out instrumentality in the administration of the Institute. The said stand taken by the first respondent can be justified, if the impugned notification is issued by the first respondent-Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, vikas Soudha, Bangalore, stating that In-charge arrangement has been made till filling up of regular post. The said stand taken by the first respondent can be justified, if the impugned notification is issued by the first respondent-Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, vikas Soudha, Bangalore, stating that In-charge arrangement has been made till filling up of regular post. But that is not the tenor of the contents of the Notification issued by the first respondent vide annexure-A dated 5. 1. 2007. What it stipulates is that, service of the second respondent has been continued as Director, till regular director is appointed by the committee. Therefore, just to suit their stand they have pleaded in their objection, contrary to what has been specifically and crystal clearly stated in the Notification. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned notification issued by the first respondent dated 5. 1. 2007 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) SO far as the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent on Annexure-R8, wherein earlier director's service has been extended for other two terms, in pursuance of amendment of Rule 14 (1) of the Rules and Regulations and the decision taken by the Governing Council of KSSDI and Commercial. and Secretary to Government C and I Department vide Annexure-R9 are concerned, in no way they are concerned with the Institution's case nor any aspects can be taken out of that. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is that, as on the date of the impugned Notification second respondent is not eligible for appointment as Director on adhoc basis till alternative arrangement is made, as rightly pointed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that as per the Cadre and recruitment Regulations, the eligibility is five years experience in programming and directing research at higher level and age limit is fixed as 50 years and second respondent is aged about 55 years and therefore he is not eligible for considering his case for the appointment of Director of the Institute. Realising this fact, on an earlier occasion, the competent authority of the first respondent has rightly issued the notification vide Annexure-D dated 3. 5. 2006 appointing the commissioner of Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge Director of the Institute. Admittedly the second respondent is working under him in the Institute as on the date of issuing the impugned Notification. 5. 2006 appointing the commissioner of Sericulture Development and Director of Sericulture as In-charge Director of the Institute. Admittedly the second respondent is working under him in the Institute as on the date of issuing the impugned Notification. Therefore, on this ground also, the notification issued by the first respondent cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The impugned Notification dated 5. 1. 2007 issued by the first respondent bearing No. Vaaka: 10:rekruvi:2006 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the first respondent to appoint the candidate as Director of the Institute in accordance with Cadre and recruitment Regulations, expeditiously. With these observations, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.