JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate and Sri Manish Kumar for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Gupta for the University. 2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 1.10.2007, by means of which the Board of Management (Prabandh Parishad) of the University has refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner on deputation on the post of Director (Works and Plants), which appointment was given to him on 16.7.2007 against a vacant post, in anticipation of approval being granted by the aforesaid Board. The Board in its 138th meeting by a resolution of 138 :12 decided to relieve the petitioner and thus, did not accord approval to his posting on deputation. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University, it has been cleared that the order impugned was passed keeping in mind that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications for the post in question, which qualification was prescribed by the Board of Management in their meeting held on 12.1.1978. 4. The qualifications prescribed were as under : "Essential : (i) A degree in Civil Engineering/Agricultural Engineering from a recognised University; (ii) 10 years experience of construction of large public buildings with a Government or Public buildings with a Government or Public Organisation in a responsible position not below the rank of Executive Engineer in a reputed Public, Corporation, Co-operative and Autonomous organisation or a reputed firm; (iii) Significant experience in works management and maintenance of residential colonies in large educational industrial or other organisations; (iv) At least 10 years administrative experience in the works management and in an industrial or other organisation; (v) At least 10 years administrative experience of co-ordinating and supervising the activities of the Works Department. Preferable : (i) Knowledge of accounts, financial procedure, purchases, management of stores and Electricity Laws, etc. (ii) Experience of campus planning and designing." 5. It may be put on record that the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact in the rejoinder affidavit or elsewhere, namely, that he did not possess the aforesaid prescribed qualifications. Preferable : (i) Knowledge of accounts, financial procedure, purchases, management of stores and Electricity Laws, etc. (ii) Experience of campus planning and designing." 5. It may be put on record that the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact in the rejoinder affidavit or elsewhere, namely, that he did not possess the aforesaid prescribed qualifications. However, challenge has been made on the following grounds, namely, (i) the petitioner had already worked on deputation on the said post with effect from the year 2001 upto 22.7.04 and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having requisite qualifications; (ii) in view of Section 11 of Act and Statutes of the Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, the post in question, namely, Director (Works and Plants) does not require any approval by the Board, when it is to be filled up by deputation; and (iii) the action is mala fide as various other persons have been allowed to continue to work on deputation, though they are not having requisite qualification. 6. In regard to the first plea, suffice would be to mention that if the petitioner was allowed to work on deputation for any period prior to the present assignment, that would not be an answer regarding the plea of the petitioner not being possessed of requisite qualification for the post. We do not know that under what circumstances and for what reason, the petitioner was earlier given appointment on deputation, if he was not qualified. In any case, such appointment would not confer any legal right to continue on the post or having a fresh posting on deputation again on the occurrence of any vacancy. There cannot be any exception if University has refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner on deputation finding that he was not possessed of the qualification prescribed for the post. 7. So far the applicability of Section 11 of the Act is concerned, the interpretation given by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the post of Director (Works and Plants) is a non-teaching post to be filled by a deputationist, the Boards approval is not required, is not the true interpretation of the Section. 8. Section 11 reads as under : "11. 8. Section 11 reads as under : "11. Appointments of all other staff not specially provided for in the Act or these Statutes, shall be made by the Kulpati with the approval of the Board except the following posts which may be filled by the Kulpati without reference to the Board, namely : (a) The non-teaching posts carrying a scale the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1,250/- including those which are filled by obtaining the services of a person on deputation for a period upto three years from a regularly constituted service of the State or Central Government or an autonomous Body constituted by the State or Central Government. The upper limit of Rs. 1,250/- will be subject to alteration from time to time, by the resolutions of the Board of Management on the basis of ratiolisation or enhancement occurring on the basis of the decision of the Government. (b) The posts for which the Kulpati is the appointing authority under the provision of the Act." 9. Section 11 says that non-teaching posts carrying a scale the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1,250/- including those which are filled by obtaining the services of a person on deputation for a period upto three years, may be filled in without reference to the Board i.e. by the Vice Chancellor himself. 10. The conditions which are attached to such posts, which can be filled in by the Vice Chancellor, without reference to the Board, are the following, (i) it should be a non-teaching post; (ii) it should carry a scale, the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1,250/-; and (iii) it includes the posts, which are to be filled by deputation for a period upto three years. 11. The inclusion of the posts, which are to be filled in by deputation in the aforesaid Statute does not exempt the limit of maximum pay scale of Rs. 1,250/- attached to the post. In case the non-teaching post is to be filled in by deputation from the regularly constituted service of the State or Central Government or autonomous body constituted by the State or Central Government, the essential requirement shall be that the post is to be filled in by deputation and should also be carrying a scale, maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1,250/-. 1,250/-. If either of the two conditions are not existing, the appointment cannot be made without reference to the Board. 12. This legal position is also evident by the fact that earlier when the petitioner was brought on deputation, his appointment was duly approved by the Board. This time also the petitioner joined the service on deputation against a clear vacancy only in anticipation of the Boards approval. The petitioner did not challenge the said rider put in his appointment order permitting him to join on deputation and happily waited for the outcome of the Boards meeting. It is a different matter that when the Board did not accord its approval, he challenged the said order and has taken such a plea, namely, incompetence of the Board to consider the matter. In case the petitioner was of the view that Board has no role to play in the matter of appointment on deputation on the post of Director (Works and Plants), he would have been well advised to challenge the aforesaid condition at the threshold instead of waiting for the Board to take a decision. He thus, allowed the Board to consider the appointment without any protest and having failed before the Board, he has filed the present writ petition. 13. The applicability of the qualifications as determined by the Board of Management in its meeting held in the year 1978, can also not be faulted with for the reason that it is a specialised post and for which requisite qualifications of engineering etc. have been prescribed. It is for the University to prescribe a qualification for a particular post and moreso, when it is a non-teaching post. The Board of Management had prescribed this qualification as far back as in the year 1978 and, therefore, if any appointment was made subsequent to the year 1978, including that of the petitioner on deputation, or of a person who was not having that requisite qualification, it would neither make the qualification bad in law nor would ratify the illegal appointment, the same being of a person, who was not having the qualification, as prescribed. 14. 14. Any appointment made in violation of the Act and Statutes or the rules would also not confer any enforceable right to the petitioner nor the petitioner can insist that once the appointment was made ignoring the qualifications, he should either be allowed to continue or be given a fresh appointment on deputation. A wrong committed by the Board of Management or the University, if at all it has committed any wrong in making any such appointment, would not call the applicability of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution, as wrong cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the orders of the Court. 15. The plea of malafide has been taken half heartedly as is evident from the averments made in Para 24 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that after 1979 various persons have been allowed to work on deputation though they were not having the prescribed qualification, to which answer has been given in Para 23 of the counter-affidavit explaining the fact that those persons but for three, who were not having requisite qualifications, were given only officiating or additional duty for the post. 16. We do not find it essential to enter into this question of malafide for the aforesaid reason and also for the fact that even if some persons were allowed to hold the post on deputation or on officiating basis alongwith their substantive post, that cannot be equated with regular appointment. As already observed above, if any appointment on deputation was made of any person who was not qualified as per the qualifications prescribed by the Board of Management, it would not confer any right to the petitioner to hold the post, nor would create any enforceable right in his favour. 17. We thus do not find any illegality in the Boards decision as it does say that the post of Director (Works and Plants) need be filled by a person who does possess the requisite qualifications for the said post. 18. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. ————