JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. Both these Letters Patent Appeal arise out of CAV Judgement dated 11.1.2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990 and another decision of even date in Special Civil Application No. 6798 of 2005 by learned Single Judge. That in writ petition namely, Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990, the petitioner, a lecturer in the college in the subject of Hindi prayed to quash and set aside the office order passed by respondent No. 2 namely, Joint Director of Higher Education, State of Gujarat and a consequential order of termination passed by respondent No. 3/Management of the college terminating services of the petitioner with effect from the date of the appointment as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter as the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with qualifications prescribed for a lecturer in the college by Government of Gujarat. After issuance of notice on 23.3.1990 to respondents making it returnable on 2nd April, 1990, on 6.4.1990 after hearing learned advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 namely Government of Gujarat and Commissioner of Higher Education, by way of ad interim relief respondents were directed that the services of the petitioner shall not stand terminated pursuant to impugned orders produced at Annexure-J and K to the petition and further petitioner shall be permitted to perform her duties on the post in question till further orders. The above interim relief continued from time to time and on 16.8.1991 while issuing rule, interim relief granted earlier came to be confirmed. The above interim relief remained in operation till the writ petition was finally heard on 11.1.2012 and upon dismissal of the writ petition, rule came to be discharged and interim relief was also vacated forthwith. However, at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner to continue the relief for the period of four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach higher forum, interim relief which operated till the date of pronouncement of the judgement was ordered to continue to operate fro a further period of two weeks. However, at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner to continue the relief for the period of four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach higher forum, interim relief which operated till the date of pronouncement of the judgement was ordered to continue to operate fro a further period of two weeks. Later on Civil Application (for stay) No. 767 of 2012 filed in Letters Patent appeal No. 72 of 2012 in which, the above judgement and order dated 11.1.2012 came to be challenged while issuing rule on 24.1.2012 making it returnable on 27.2.2012 and the Division Bench granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 4 (a) of Civil Application meaning thereby operation of the impugned judgement and order dated 11.1.2012 passed learned Single Judge in Special Civil application No. 2590 of 1990 came to be stayed. By the order of even date i.e. 21.4.2012 Letters Patent Appeal also came to be admitted. The interim relief granted in Civil Application No. 767 of 2012 was made absolute on 27.2.2013 and thus, the appellant is performing her duties as a lecturer in the college when this appeal is heard finally. 2. Special Civil Application No. 6798 of 2005 was preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside communication dated 6.1.2005 issued by office of respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Higher Education, by which, request of the petitioner to grant her Senior Selection Grade came to be rejected and further prayed to direct the respondents to fix salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 effective from 20.8.1987 and further to direct respondents to fix salary of the petitioner on completion of 7 years and 9 years respectively in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- with reasonable rate of interest accruing thereon. 3. The above writ petition also came to be rejected, relying on the order dated 11.1.2012 passed in main writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990 as the appointment of the petitioner was held invalid and illegal as she was not qualified to be appointed on the post of lecturer in the subject of Hindi with respondent No. 3- college and therefore, not eligible to receive Senior Selection Grade. Letters Patent Appeal No. 731 of 2014 is preferred against the above order. 4. Letters Patent Appeal No. 731 of 2014 is preferred against the above order. 4. For appreciating controversies raised in Letters Patent Appeal No. 72 of 2012 it is better to refer to certain facts and chronological events along with relevant Government Resolutions and notifications/order and memo issued by University Grant Commissioner with regard to prescribed education qualifications for lecturers in college in the faculties of Arts Humanities. 5. The appellant/original petitioner is unmarried was born on 27.10.1954, aged about 61 years and is to superannuate on reaching the age of 62 years i.e. age of superannuation for college lectures, on 27.10.2016. At the time of her appointment as Lecturer in Hindi in Smt. V.D. Ghelania Mahalia Arts College, Savarkundla in the year 1987 the petitioner was possessing the following qualifications. Year of Passing Degree Percentage 1972 SCC 54.00% 1976 BA (Hindi) 61.85% 1978 MA (Hindi) 49.87% 1979 M. Phil First Class 1982 D.P.Ed. 71.00% 1983 LL.B. (Gen) 54.00% 1984 LL.D. (Spl.) 58.00% After appointment Year of Passing Degree Percentage 1996 Ph.D. (Hindi) Guj. University - 5.1. On 13.7.1987 respondent No. 3 College Management issued advertisement inter alia, for a full-time Lecturer in Hindi. The required qualifications were: Ph.D. Desirable. 55% in M.A. indispensable. The petitioner submitted an application on 17.7.1987. The college was affiliated to the SNDT Women's University. On 5.8.1987, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee and interview was held by the duly constituted Interview Committee comprising of (1) Vice-Chancellor, SNDT Women's University (2) Principal of SNDT College, Bhavnagar, (3) Two subject experts (4) Representatives of College Management. The petitioner came to be selected. Petitioner was issued appointment order as Lecturer on 19.8.1987 on temporary basis for one year from 20.8.1987. Thereafter, on 18/27.7.1988, SNDT University granted approval for the academic year 1988-89 also and college management continued the petitioner's appointment for one more year for 1988-89 on 16.8.1988. Thereafter on 21.1.1989, respondent No. 3-College Management issued advertisement inter alia for a full-time Lecturer in Hindi and only female candidate was to be selected. The required qualification for the above post were:- M.A. M. Phil 55% marks necessary. The petitioner submitted her application on 22.1.1989 and on 14.4.1989 interview was held by Selection Committee consisting of qualified members like first selection and the petitioner came to be selected. On 18.4.1989 appointment order was issued with continuity from the first appointment w.e.f. 20.8.1987. The college became eligible for Govt. The petitioner submitted her application on 22.1.1989 and on 14.4.1989 interview was held by Selection Committee consisting of qualified members like first selection and the petitioner came to be selected. On 18.4.1989 appointment order was issued with continuity from the first appointment w.e.f. 20.8.1987. The college became eligible for Govt. Grant from the academic year 1989-90 but the Director of Higher Education declined to approve the petitioner's appointment on the ground that she was not possessing the necessary qualifications as per G.R. dated 23.11.1976 and 14.9.1988. In view of the above order of Director of Higher Education, respondent No. 3-College Management issued notice of termination dated 14.3.1990 to terminate the petitioner w.e.f. 15.4.1990. The petitioner immediately filed Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990 challenging both the said orders and this Court granted interim relief staying the impugned notice. In the Civil Application No. 924/1991 vide order dated 16.3.1991, relief was granted to the effect that the petitioner's arrears of salary shall be released and her salary shall be paid regularly. On 11.1.2012 the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.L. Soni) dismissed the petition and hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the appellant would contend that the appellant/petitioner since her first appointment which was made on 19.8.1987 has continued for about 28 years and rendered services as a lecturer in the subject of Hindi with respondent No. 3-College, rejection of writ petition by learned Single Judge based on not fulfilling thee requisite qualification prevalent at the time of her appointment is wholly misconceived inasmuch as various notifications/memorandum/communications issued by University Grants Commission in exercise of its statutory powers framed vide Regulations, 1983 were not considered at all. 6.1. Learned advocate for the appellant has invited our attention to minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as College Lecturer, as borne out from schedule II-UGC letter dated 13.6.1983, to which a detail reference will be made later on and submitted that all the above requirements a per UGC regulations fro the appointment as a lecturer in the affiliated college ere fulfilled by the petitioner. That she possessed degree in M.Phil and a 2nd class in masters and prior to that obtained 61.85% marks in B.A. examination and such regulations of UGC are binding to all Universities including University established by an act of Parliament or a State Legislature and in executive or administrative institutes issued by any State Government or its subordinate authority which are contrary to and/or inconsistent with the said statutory regulations and void and inoperative in the eye of law. To this extend the learned Judge has committed an error and order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6.2. That error in which learned Single Judge fell was in interpreting G.R. dated 23rd November, 1976 issued by the State Government and holding that the appellant never fulfilled or possessed qualifications required for the college lecturer as she secured less than 55% in M.A. (Hindi). Likewise, another Government Resolutions dated 14.9.1988, no doubt pertaining to revision of the pay-scales of the teacher which is paragraph 7 of Appendix I stated that the minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of lecturer/readers/professors will be those prescribed by the UGC from time to time and, therefore, the appellant ought to have been held to have possessed all the prescribed qualifications to be appointed as a lecturer as per UGC norms. It is further submitted that a clarification was made by subsequent G.R. dated 12.2.1990 of earlier G.R. dated 14.9.1988 about "good academic record" means average record of 3rd year (final year) degree and master degree assessment which would at least be 52.5% or M.Phil or Ph.d. Thus, average marks of the petitioner if calculated on the above basis and the petitioner secured 61.85% marks in the 3rd and final year degree and 49.87% marks in master degree the average would come to 55.86% and the petitioner also possessed degree of M.Phil and therefore qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in the college. 6.3. 6.3. It is further submitted that the circular of Department of Education of Government of Gujarat dated 11.10.1988 confers certain benefits upon lecturers who were appointed prior to 14.9.1988 in one college and continued thereafter with another college for conferring continuity and Senior Grade Pay-scale and even though such lecturers secured less than 55% marks in post graduation namely, M.A. were allowed to continue and their initial appointment was treated as legal and approved by Commissioner in Higher Education. Even on this ground also the appellant was discriminated. It is submitted that another ground on which learned Single Judge fell into error was about considering particulars of the grade scale referred to in UGC regulations, for which also the petitioner fulfilled all the parameters and ought to have been continued in service with by granting the prayers of both the petitions. 6.4. It is submitted that upon upholding the contentions as above raised necessary corollary would follow for conferring benefits of senior pay-scale to the appellant as prayed in another Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990, for which, Letters Patent Appeal No. 731 of 2014 is preferred. 7. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated submissions made by learned AGP before learned Single Judge on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and submitted that as per advertisement which clearly require M.A. degree with 55% marks to become eligible for appointment on the post of lecturer, admittedly the petitioner herein possess M.A. degree with 49.5.% and her appointment was subject to approval by the Commissioner of Higher Education and, therefore, no right was conferred upon the petitioner to continue as she never fulfilled the educations qualification for such an appointment and therefore, no illegality is committed by learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner. It is further submitted that by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has continued in service from time to time which would not confer any such right and, therefore, in absence of any merit both these Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted that by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has continued in service from time to time which would not confer any such right and, therefore, in absence of any merit both these Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be rejected. Learned AGP has drawn our attention by emphasising Government Resolution of 23.11.1976 and 14.9.1988 and another communication dated 22.7.1988 issued by Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education with regard to measures for maintenance of standards in higher education and submitted that power of the Government to prescribe higher qualifying standards than UGC in academic field is accepted even by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that even as per the above G.R.'s and guideline of Ministry of Human Resources of Government of India, the appellant herein was not qualified and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be rejected. Learned AGP would dispute calculation of percentage of marks by the petitioner in fianl year B.A. Examination and it is submitted that marks obtained by her in final B.A. cannot be said to be reasonably good academic record. The appointment of petitioner was by non-granted college at relevant point of time and parameters for appointment of a lecturer in college remained 55% marks in M.A., and the same was never fulfilled by the petitioner and therefore non approval of her appointment by the Commissioner of Higher Education and a consequential termination upheld by learned Single Judge deserves no interference in this appeal and to be rejected accordingly. 8. Upon considerations of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the entire record including the pleadings filed in these Letters Patent Appeals and the order impugned by learned Single Judge, we deem it just and proper to reproduce relevant part of reasoning's of learned Single Judge which substantially form grounds for rejecting writ petitions filed by the appellant/petitioner herein. "10. It clearly appears that when the first appointment was made pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.1987, the petitioner did not fulfil the qualification of M.A. with 55% marks required for the post of Lecturer. The advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidate having M.A. Degree with 55% marks would be eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The petitioner did not possess the above-said qualification. In fact, the petitioner passed M.A. with 49.5% marks. The advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidate having M.A. Degree with 55% marks would be eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The petitioner did not possess the above-said qualification. In fact, the petitioner passed M.A. with 49.5% marks. Therefore, the first appointment order dated 19.8.1987 clearly records that the appointment of the petitioner was purely for temporary period of one year and subject to the approval by the Education Department of the State of Gujarat, over and above the approval by the University. It appears that the University, vide order dated 18/21.7.1988, granted approval as a special case to the appointment of the petitioner for academic year 1988-1989 and on this basis, respondent No. 3 passed order dated 16.8.1988, to continue the petitioner for one more year. There was neither any approval to the first order nor to the second order extending the appointment by the State of Gujarat. 11. It appears that respondent No. 3, then, issued advertisement dated 21.1.1989 to fill in the post of Lecturer through female candidate with other posts and there also, the qualification required was M.A., M.Phil. with 55% marks. Though the petitioner was not possessing the said qualification, she applied for the said post and participated in the selection for the said post and was selected in the interview and appointed by respondent No. 3, vide order dated 18.4.1989. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner again came to be made though she was not complying with requisite qualification. It appears that since the appointment of the petitioner was not according to the Rules and the Government Resolutions, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 6.3.1990, did not approve the appointment of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification as per the Government Resolution dated 14.9.1988. 12. The qualification required vide Government Resolutions dated 23.11.1976 and 14.9.1988 for appointment on the post of Lecturer was Master Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar wanted the Court to read the consistent good academic record as the main thing from the Government Resolution dated 23.11.1976, to point out that the petitioner was complying with the qualification prescribed therein for College Lecturer. However, learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar wanted the Court to read the consistent good academic record as the main thing from the Government Resolution dated 23.11.1976, to point out that the petitioner was complying with the qualification prescribed therein for College Lecturer. However, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar was requested to read the whole clause (i) of Clause (b) of Appendix-'A' of the said Government Resolution at page 63. He could not dispute that the requirement of consistent good academic record was over and above the requirement of qualification of Master Degree in the relevant subject with first or high second class (B+) and the qualification mentioned in Clause (iii). Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar is not right in arguing that the petitioner was fulfilling the qualification required for the post of Lecture when the appointment of the petitioner was made. 13. In fact, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar could not dispute that the petitioner did not match with the qualification of M.A. with 55% marks as required by the advertisement for filling the post of Lecturer. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, however, made strenuous efforts to point out that the petitioner was fulfilling the qualification as required by Resolution dated 14.9.1988 and to substantiate his argument, he read Clause (7) in Appendix-'A' of the Resolution dated 14.9.1988, at page 98 of the petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner read part of Clause (7), which is quoted as under:- "Generally, the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200- 4000 shall be Master's Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade, and good academic record." By reading the above said part of Clause (7), learned advocate Mr. Majmudar led emphasis on the following words:- "Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks" He argued that the petitioner had M.Phil. Degree, which is a Master Degree with 55% marks and therefore, she was eligible and qualified for the post of Lecturer. 14. Argument of learned advocate Mr. Majmudar cannot be accepted, firstly because the petitioner did not hold Master Degree with 55% marks in relevant subject. Degree of M.Phil with 55% marks, therefore, cannot be said to be complying with the requirement of Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks. 14. Argument of learned advocate Mr. Majmudar cannot be accepted, firstly because the petitioner did not hold Master Degree with 55% marks in relevant subject. Degree of M.Phil with 55% marks, therefore, cannot be said to be complying with the requirement of Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks. What was required by the advertisements as also by Government Resolutions dated 23.11.1976 and 14.9.1988, was Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks. Undisputably, the petitioner did not have 55% marks in Master Degree in the relevant subject, for which the post of Lecturer was to be filled in. The advertisement was for filling the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject. Therefore, the relevant subject was Hindi. The petitioner did not have 55% marks in Master Degree in Hindi subject. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner had requisite qualification of Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks. Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that the petitioner did not have requisite qualification for the post Lecturer when, she was appointed pursuant to the above-said two advertisements. I, therefore, find that respondent No. 2 has not committed any error in not approving the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, the orders impugned in the petition cannot be said to be in any manner illegal orders." 9. Learned Single Judge then referred to certain decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3323 about no justification to do away or dispensing the essential academic qualification in the relevant subject, for which, the post has been advertised. That another decision in the case of Shesh Mani Shukla v. D.I.O.S Deoria & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 1433 , in which the Apex Court has held that the appointment of the appellant being contrary to the statutory provision was void ab initio. Therefore, tenor of the reasoning's of learned Single Judge is exclusively based on non-fulfilment of academic qualifications by the petitioner at the time of advertisement as prevalent pursuant to Government Resolutions to which reference is made in earlier paragraphs. 10. Therefore, tenor of the reasoning's of learned Single Judge is exclusively based on non-fulfilment of academic qualifications by the petitioner at the time of advertisement as prevalent pursuant to Government Resolutions to which reference is made in earlier paragraphs. 10. The relevant extraction of impugned orders passed learned Single Judge is to be considered in the context of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to decide eligibility qua academic qualifications possessed by the petitioner at the time of her appointment initially in the year 1987 and subsequently in the year 1989, on both these occasions her appointment was clearly by duly constituted Selection Committee and approved by SNDT University subject to final approval by the Department of Education, State of Gujarat. 11. If we peruse reliance placed learned counsel for the appellant on prescribed requisite qualifications by the UGC under Section 26 (1) (e) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, namely, the "University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a university or other institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982". As per 4.2.1982 notification of UGC the said qualifications for the 'College Lecturers' are as under: "(a) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a Foreign University. (b) An M.Phil, degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's Level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work; and Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evidence either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in (a) above. Provided further that if candidate possessing the qualifications as at (b) above is not available or not considered suitable, the college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee may appoint a person possessing a good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M.Phil. Degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till he obtains that degree or gives evidence or equivalent published work of high standard. That notification of UGC dated 13.6.1983 prescribed similar criteria. Degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till he obtains that degree or gives evidence or equivalent published work of high standard. That notification of UGC dated 13.6.1983 prescribed similar criteria. Explanation: For determining "Good Academic Record" the following criteria shall be adopted. University Lecturers: (I)------ Not applicable (II) ----" (III)-----" College Lecturers: (i) a candidate holding as M.Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level should possess at least a second class Master's degree; or (ii) A candidate not holding an M.Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's degree level should possess a high second class Master's and a second class in the first degree (B.A./B.Sc./B.Com) examination; or (iii) A candidate not holding as M.Phil or a recognised degree beyond a Master's level but possessing a second class Master's degree should have obtained a first class in the first degree (B.A./B.Sc./B.Com) examination. 2. "persons having secured marks more than the mid-point of the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the second division and the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the first division by a University shall be deemed to have passed that examination in the high second class." 12. Thus, both the above notifications of University Grant Commissions are considered in light of the academic qualifications of the petitioner, a case is made out that as per statutory regulations of UGC, the petitioner was holding M.Phil degree and possessing 2nd Class Masters Degree. Moreover, the formula 'C' in 7.0 scale means 45% to 54% will have to be calculated keeping in mind marks obtained in post graduation and final year graduation examination. The petitioner secured 49.87% in M.A. and obtained 61.85% marks in B.A. Examination the average percentage of the petitioner would go beyond 55% and further on the criteria of good academic record also she would fulfill the eligibility criteria. 12.1. The petitioner secured 49.87% in M.A. and obtained 61.85% marks in B.A. Examination the average percentage of the petitioner would go beyond 55% and further on the criteria of good academic record also she would fulfill the eligibility criteria. 12.1. However, G.R. Dated 23.11.1976 is pertaining to "Revision of Salary Scale of Universities and College Teachers, 5th Five Year Plan Scheme" pursuant to recommendation of University Grant Commissioner for a revision of salary/scale of the university and college teachers' with effect from 1.1.1973 and decided that the State Government also to adopt this scale in the University and affiliated colleges as adopted by the Government of India with liability of additional expenditure to be born out proportionately as mentioned. Scheduled-B to the above G.R. prescribed qualification for the College Lecturers (i) A consistently good academic record with first or Higher Second Class (B Plus) at Master degree in a relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University; and (ii) M.Phil degree or a recognised decree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity for independent research work and sub-clause (ii) is a residuary clause in case of candidate possessing the above qualification is not available a candidate possessing consistently good academic record can be considered upon recommendation of the Selection Committee subject to obtaining M.Phil degree or recognised degree beyond the Master's level within 05 years of the appointment. 12.2. Similarly G.R. Dated 14.9.1988 is pertaining to "Revision of pay scale of teachers, librarians and physical education personnel in Universities and Colleges and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education. In view of sanction of U.G.C Pay-scale of University and college teachers vide G.R. Dated 23rd November,1976 and after recommendation of Mehtrotra Commission, Government of India has revised pay-scale of such class with effect from 1.1.1986 upon sharing basis of additional expenditure by which Central Government was to provide assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of such additional expenditure and rest to be borne by the State Government, Appendix-I Clause (7) prescribed minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer etc., should be those prescribed by the University Grant Commission from time to time. However, generally the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the scale of pay Rs. However, generally the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the scale of pay Rs. 2200-4000 shall be Master degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade, and good academic record. The term 'good academic record' came to be defined by another G.R. Dated 12.2.1990 in the context of revision of pay-scale again, now 'good academic record' mean an average record of third year (final degree) and Master degree assessment which would at least be 52.5% or M.Phil or P.hd. A statement of fact is made by Mr. K.B. Pujara that appellant secured 61.85% in B.A. And 49.87% in M.A. (Hindi) and average would go beyond 55%. However, appellant secured First Class in M.Phil (Hindi). 12.3. UGC Notifications dated 11.3.1985 laying down the UGC (The minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the faculties of Arts Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985 also lays down in paragraph-5 that "No teacher shall be appointed who does not fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment as per University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University or other Institutions affiliated to its, Regulations 1982) notified under Section 26(i)(2) of the University Grants Commission Act,1956." 13. In addition to above, information solicited by the petitioner under Right to Information Act reveal that as per Government Resolution dated 11.10.1988 and 6.6.1989 pertaining to pay-scale of lecturers of college etc. reveal that college teachers appointed after 14.9.1988 will be exempted from operation of earlier Government Resolutions made applicable with regard to the appointments. Even those college lecturers, appointed in the college prior to 1988 and not fulfilling academic qualification of 55% marks in post graduation namely, M.A. and subsequently joined another college were continued to serve the respective colleges by waiving the requirement of 55% marks. The above fact remain undisputed by learned ASGP. In the facts of this case, the petitioner secured nearly 50% marks in M.A. examination but got 1st Class in M.Phil and even after appointment she continued to achieve higher excellence in the field of education and was conferred Ph.D. in Hindi by Gujarat Vidhyapith in 1996 and was recognised as Post Graduate Teacher in Hindi by Saurashtra University in the year 2000 along with imparting education to college students. What is discussed in earlier paragraphs about UGC notifications of 1982 and 1983 it cannot be said that the petitioner lacked basic educational qualification at the time of appointment either in the year 1987 or in the year 1989. That reliance is placed on a communication dated 2nd July,1988 of Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Department of Government of India, in paragraph 10 clearly stated the minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of lecturers, readers, professors, will be those prescribed by the UGC from time to time and this was echoed in G.R. of Department of Education of Government of India of 14.9.1988. Therefore, the reasoning's and findings of learned Single Judge, of petitioner not fulfilling educational qualifications at the time of her appointment in the year 1987 is contrary to the record. 14. That contention of learned AGP about discretion of the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications or standards than UGC, for which, we have no different view but at relevant point of time when as per Government Resolutions of 1988 requirement was 55% marks in M.A. examination for the post of lecturer, alternatively qualification did prescribe equivalent qualification and it was fulfilled by the petitioner. As the petitioner has completed 28 years of service as a lecturer in the college and possessed requisite qualification even at the time of initial appointment, we find order passed by the Commissioner of Higher Education impugned in the writ petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14.1. That contention about calculation of percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner, for which, explanation is rendered by learned counsel for the appellant that combined marks in external and internal examination of final year B.A. is considered, there is no anomaly and percentage of the petitioner as stated in the petition and in these appeal is based on the above formula, which is permissible and accepted. 15. That, reliance placed on decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 336 in the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and Ors. 15. That, reliance placed on decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 336 in the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and Ors. about binding nature of statutory regulation framed by University about University teachers and such regulations prescribing eligibility of teaching staff of University and affiliated colleges and proposition of law laid down therein, we are in agreement with the same and the ratio laid down in the above decision applies with full force in the facts of this case since the petitioner fulfilled all prescribed norms criteria and qualifications to be appointed as a lecturer in the college affiliated to the University. 16. With regard to Letters Patent Appeal No. 731 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 6798 of 2005 is concerned, it is about the claim of the petitioner for receiving 2nd scale and increments which was denied by the respondents by communication dated 6.1.2005 by respondent No. 2 namely Commissioner for Higher Education will have to be considered in light of decision rendered by us about legality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of lecturer in Hindi with respondent No. 3-College and once the petitioner is held to have possessed all requisite qualifications at the time of her appointment in the year 1987 and 1989 necessary corollary will follow and she would be entitled to the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 20.8.1987 and further and consequential benefits in the pay-scale of Rs. 10,000 on her completion of 7 years of service and further selection grade on completion of 0 years of service in the pay-scale of Rs. 12000-18000. Likewise any further benefit is available so far as revision of pay-scale is concerned, or any other emoluments including Higher Grade of Selection, the respondents shall pay such an amount for which, the petitioner is eligible, preferably within two months of receipt of writ/order of this Court. 17. Consequently, as a result of the discussion and findings as above, the orders dated 11.1.2012 passed by learned Single Judge, impugned in both these Letters Patent Appeal and orders dated 6.3.1990 passed by respondent No. 2 and 14.3.1990 passed by respondent No. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 2590 of 1990 and impugned order dated 6.1.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6798 of 2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. 17.1. 17.1. As the appointment of the appellant/petitioner is found legal and valid and that in the year 1987 and 1989 her appointment was approved by SNDT University and later on continued to serve uninterruptedly for all purposes she is to be treated as a college lecturer appointed in accordance with law and further held to be eligible to receive legally permissible retiral dues in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, these Letters Patent Appeals shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Appeal Allowed.