ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is third round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.6. The University ultimately has been able to found illegality in the appointment of the petitioner which goes to the root of the matter. The petitioner on the date of appointment as a Lecturer was not even Post Graduate. As a matter of fact after more than one year of her alleged appointment she is said to have passed the Post Graduation with only 47% of marks. Under the University Statutes for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the affiliated College the minimum requirement was a high second Class Post Graduation with 52.5% marks. The petitioner never possessed that qualification. 3. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the decision taken by the University rejecting to recognize the service of the petitioner. 4. At this stage counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since respondent no.6 has now already retired a vacancy has been created on which the petitioner can be absorbed. 5. This Court would find it difficult to issue a direction for absorption of a person who never had the prescribed qualification. 6. If the Governing Body of the affiliated College feels the necessity of filling up the post which has become vacant on account of superannuation of respondent no.6, recourse under section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act meant for filling up the post of Lecturer in Affiliated College will be taken and the case of the petitioner shall also be considered alongwith all other eligible candidates. 7. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.