Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in N.MSU/CD/QA/36/2001 dated 28.11.2002 and direct the Respondents to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Lecturer and to pay salary to the Petitioner for the services rendered by him from 17.09.2001 to 27.3.2002 relaxing the qualification so as to enable the Petitioner to get regular appointment as Lecturer. 2. Briefly stated case of Petitioner is as follows:- Petitioner passed M.A. Degree in Economics from Bharathiar University in the year 1987 by securing 54.94 percentage of mark and he had also passed M.Phil in 1990 and registered his name in the Employment Exchange. 4th Respondent Management appointed the Petitioner w.e.f. 22.08.2001 and the papers were forwarded for approval to the 3rd Respondent University and also for claiming salary. 3rd Respondent rejected the approval on the ground that Petitioner was not having 55 percentage of mark in the P.G. Decree as per the UGC norms. Petitioner made representation dated 04.02.2002 to the UGC through the 4th Respondent to grant approval of his appointment. Further case of Petitioner is that since the representation of the Petitioner was not considered, he had filed W.P.No.35062/2002 wherein the High Court issued a direction to take action on the representation of the Petitioner to the UGC and the 3rd Respondent has passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2002 that approval as Lecturer in Economics cannot be complied with which led to the filing of the present Writ Petition. 3. 2nd Respondent-UGC has filed counter contending that as per the UGC Regulations 2000, no rounding off marks obtained at the P.G. level, which is below from 55 percentage can be permitted in order to meet the requisite qualification as prescribed under the regulation and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. 3rd Respondent-University has filed counter stating that Petitioner has not satisfied the UGC norms and that the 3rd Respondent University cannot relax the qualification of a person fixed by the UGC. 3rd Respondent University further averred that Petitioner is entitled to the salary which is payable by the 4th Respondent Management. 5. 4. 3rd Respondent-University has filed counter stating that Petitioner has not satisfied the UGC norms and that the 3rd Respondent University cannot relax the qualification of a person fixed by the UGC. 3rd Respondent University further averred that Petitioner is entitled to the salary which is payable by the 4th Respondent Management. 5. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner had obtained his M.A. Decree way back in 1987 by securing 54.94 percentage of marks and had also obtained M.Phil decree in 1990 and that the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the 4th Respondent College on 22.08.2001 and Petitioner worked in the 4th Respondent College from 17.09.2001 to 27.03.2002. The learned counsel for Petitioner would further contend that the appointment in leave vacancy on temporary basis is concerned, there was no impediment even to appoint un-qualified person and that being so, leave vacancy appointment approval and payment of salary of the Petitioner are informal and there is no need to adhere to the norms prescribed by the UGC. Learned counsel for Petitioner urged that 54.94 percent of marks obtained by the Petitioner could not rounded off and make it a whole number to enable the Petitioner to be appointed as Lecturer. 6. Learned counsel for 3rd Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has not satisfied the prescribed norms fixed by the UGC. Placing reliance upon AIR 1995 SC 336 [University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and others], learned counsel for 3rd Respondent submitted that the ultimate authority to approve/relax the qualification of a teacher is UGC and 3rd Respondent University cannot relax the qualification prescribed by the UGC. 7. 4th Respondent College appointed the Petitioner in leave vacancy in 2001 and the Petitioner worked on temporary basis from 17.09.2001 to 27.03.2002. Case of Petitioner is that he had obtained 934 marks out of 1700 marks i.e. 54.94 percentage in the aggregate and UGC could consider his case rounding off the fraction and make it a whole number and give a direction to the 3rd Respondent-University, so that his qualification for Lecturership may be approved. Further case of Petitioner is that he had completed his P.G. Decree in 1987 and M.Phil in 1990 and the prescription of 55 percentage of marks by UGC in 1993 is not applicable to him. 8. UGC prescribed 55 percentage of marks in Masters Decree in 1991. Further case of Petitioner is that he had completed his P.G. Decree in 1987 and M.Phil in 1990 and the prescription of 55 percentage of marks by UGC in 1993 is not applicable to him. 8. UGC prescribed 55 percentage of marks in Masters Decree in 1991. Case of 2nd Respondent-UGC is that no rounding off marks obtained at the P.G. level, which is below from 55 percentage can be permitted in C.A.No.7188/2000 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13633/2000 [UGC v. Bijoy Oomen and others], the Supreme Court considered the case of permissibility of rounding off the marks obtained at P.G. level and the Supreme Court held that no rounding off with grace marks can be permitted in order to meet the requisite benchmark of 55 percentage as laid down in UGC regulations. As per UGC Regulations 2000 Notes (2), relaxation of 5 percentage is provided from 55 percentage to 50 percentage of marks to the Ph.D Degree holders who have passed Masters Degree prior to 19.09.1991 and not to M.Phil Decree holders. Petitioner having obtained P.G. Degree with M.Phil cannot claim the benefit of either relaxation of 5 percentage or rounding off the marks. 9. Placing reliance upon the Order in W.P.No.43132 of 2006 dated 15.11.2006 [ Justice K.Chandru], it was contended that 54.94 percentage of marks obtained by the Petitioner could be rounded off as a whole number. The Petitioner thereon in the said Writ Petition secured 44.5 percentage of marks. The rules for admission in Diploma in Teacher Education (Urudu) requires that the persons who secured 540 marks out of 1200 marks in Higher Secondary Examination alone will be eligible for admission. In the said case, the Petitioner thereon obtained 44.5 percentage of marks in Higher Secondary Examination which was ordered to be rounded off to the whole figure by the learned single Judge. The said case relates to the marks obtained in the Higher Secondary Examination for admission in Diploma in Teacher Education for which not much expertise is required. In so far as the post of Lecturer/Teaching in colleges, UGC regulations are to be strictly adhered. The above decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. 10. The said case relates to the marks obtained in the Higher Secondary Examination for admission in Diploma in Teacher Education for which not much expertise is required. In so far as the post of Lecturer/Teaching in colleges, UGC regulations are to be strictly adhered. The above decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. 10. Drawing the Courts attention to AIR 1995 SC 336 [University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and others], the learned counsel for 3rd Respondent-University submitted that the ultimate authority to approve/relax the qualification of a teacher is the UGC and not the University. If any University relaxes the qualification of a person, under Sec.14 of the UGC Act, UGC can initiate proceedings against such University. In fact, Petitioner himself has accepted the position in law and had applied to the UGC for relaxation of his qualification which has been turned down by the UGC. Therefore, 3rd Respondent-University has no option but to reject the request of the Petitioner for approval of his qualification. Since the Petitioner has not satisfied the prescribed qualification, no direction could be issued to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Lecturer on regular basis. 11. Admittedly, the Petitioner has worked in the 4th Respondent College from 17.09.2001 to 27.3.2002. For such appointment even an unqualified person can be appointed and the salary of the substitute teacher appointed temporarily in such vacancies are being paid by the UGC. In its counter, 3rd Respondent-University has categorically stated that the Petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period of his temporary service i.e. from 17.09.2001 to 27.03.2002 and the 4th Respondent Management is liable to pay the same. 12. In the result, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief of direction to appoint him as Lecturer on regular basis and the Writ Petition is dismissed. 4th Respondent-Management is directed to pay the salary to the Petitioner for the period of his temporary service i.e. 17.09.2001 to 27.03.2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.