JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Commissioner of Education calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 12th September, 2001 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No. 80 of 1984. 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under; 2.1 The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part time lecturer in the year 1981 by the respondent No. 2-College. In the year 1984, the College felt the necessity of appointing a full time lecturer in the subject of Biology. It thought fit to issue an advertisement in this regard. It appears that the respondent No. 1 applied for the post of the full time lecturer in the subject of Biology and one another person also applied. The respondent No. 1 was already serving as a part time lecturer in the College. The other person, who had applied, was not serving. It appears that at that stage, the College realized that having regard to the regulations and the ordinance of the South Gujarat University, it was permissible for the College to appoint a part time lecturer on the post of a full time lecturer, of course, after prior approval of the University. After consulting the University, the College finalized the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as a full time lecturer in the subject of Biology. 2.2 The problem cropped up at that stage for the respondent No. 1. Although she was appointed as a full time lecturer, yet the Government decided not to pay her the regular salary of a full time lecturer. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 1 thought fit to file an Application No. 80 of 1984 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal adjudicated the application of the respondent No. 1, and after hearing all the parties concerned, passed the impugned order, which reads as under; "2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a part time lecturer in the subject of Bio-Science (Home Science) with effect from 10.9.81. As per the said appointment letter, the applicant joined the respondent college with effect from 26.9.81 and at the relevant point of time the applicant was possessing the qualification of M.Sc with 'A' grade. The applicant has passed M.Sc. As per the said appointment letter, the applicant joined the respondent college with effect from 26.9.81 and at the relevant point of time the applicant was possessing the qualification of M.Sc with 'A' grade. The applicant has passed M.Sc. With the subject of Bio-Science and therefore she was entitled for appointment in the subject of Bio-Science (Home Science). The applicant was appointed in the respondent college with effect from 1981 and thereafter continuously she has been serving as part time lecturer in the respondent college. In the year 1982-83 the applicant was taking five lectures and thereafter she has been taking seven lectures in her subject. It appears that there was increase in the workload of the subject of the applicant in the respondent college and therefore a post for full time lecturer was created. Pursuant to this, the respondent management published an advertisement in daily news paper for the post of full time lecturer on 30.7.84. The said advertisement was again published on 8.8.84 and 23.8.84. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the applicant had applied for the said post as she was entitled for appointment as full time lecturer in the respondent college. As per the general rules and regulations for appointment in the colleges, if there is work load in biology and Chemistry or Bio-Science and if a part time lecturer is already working in the said subjects, then the said person can be appointed as a full time lecturer. The applicant is relying upon Ordinance No. 68 (kh) (3) of the South Gujarat University and is also relying upon circular dated 17.10.80 of the South Gujarat University, as mentioned in the memo of application. 3. At the time of filing of this application, after hearing the learned advocate Mr. H.M. Mehta, stay was granted in favour of the applicant regarding the appointment of another lecturer in the subject of applicant as a part time lecturer. After issuance of the notices to all the respective parties, respondent No. 2 Principal of the respondent college had given consent in writing before this Tribunal regarding appointment of the applicant as a full time lecturer in the subject of Bio-Science (Home Science) with the condition that if the C.H.E is considering the case of the applicant and if the management gets N.O.C from the C.H.E. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 filed written statement on 31.12.84 stating that one Mr. S.J. Panarwala is appointed as a part time lecturer in the subject of the applicant after following due procedure with effect from 30.11.84 and therefore requested this Tribunal to vacate the stay which was granted earlier by this Tribunal at the time of filing of the application. 4. L.A Mr. S.J. Panarwala has filed an application in application No. 80/84 through his Ld. Advocate Mr. A.D. Oza on 8.4.85 and after hearing the parties, this Tribunal passed an order for joining the said applicant as respondent No. 5 and as per the order of this Tribunal, amendment was carried out in the title of the main application by Ld. Ad. Mr. Oza. 5. The respondent No. 4 C.H.E has filed remarks to the main application stating that the ordinance of the University is not applicable in the present case as the case of the applicant is only with regard to conversion from part timer to full timer and the procedure for appointment of part timer and full timer is different. It has been further submitted by C.H.E that the rules and regulations of the Government of Gujarat and the circulars issued by the South Gujarat University are not in consonance regarding conversion from part timer to full timer. On 8.4.85 the respondent No. 5 gave an application for vacating the stay but no order was passed by this Tribunal and the said application was fixed for final hearing along with the main application. Evidence was recorded in 1985-86 and thereafter the matter was pending for final hearing. 6. At the time of hearing of this application, the learned advocate Mr. Shastri on behalf of the applicant has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the Circular of South Gujarat University and Ordinance No. 69-A- Clause 3(b)(vii)(c) of the South Gujarat University. Evidence was recorded in 1985-86 and thereafter the matter was pending for final hearing. 6. At the time of hearing of this application, the learned advocate Mr. Shastri on behalf of the applicant has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the Circular of South Gujarat University and Ordinance No. 69-A- Clause 3(b)(vii)(c) of the South Gujarat University. It appears that the South Gujarat University has issued as Circular dated 15.10.98 regarding conversion of part time lecturer's post into the post of full time lecturer as per clause 8(b)(vii)(c) of ordinance No. 69-A. As per the said circular, the applicant who is appointed as a part time lecturer with effect from 26.9.81 which is prior to 23-2.88, the said person is entitled for appointment as a full time lecturer as per Resolution No. 10 passed in the meeting dated 27.7.98 in the syndicate of the South Gujarat University has given approval to the appointment of the applicant as full time lecturer with effect from 7.9.88 in the subject of bio-science (Home science) with certain conditions. In the said conditions it is mentioned that at the time of appointment of such a lecturer, the college has to take sufficient care to see that there is no teacher surplus in the said subject wherein the applicant is appointed as full time lecturer from part time lecturer and another condition is that the appointment of the applicant as full tie lecturer will have probation is in consonance with the provisions of the Ordinance No. 68/A of the South Gujarat University as well as the provisions of the Gujarat Affiliated colleges Services Tribunal Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also mentioned that the management has to take sufficient care to see that at the time of appointment of the applicant they have taken into consideration the Resolutions and/or circulars of Education Department of the Government of Gujarat and they have also taken into consideration the provisions for S.C./S.T and OBC and that they have fulfilled the said criteria and in the last condition it is mentioned that the applicant is not giving personal tuitions. The applicant has to obtain such certificate and to forward the same to the University within one month. The applicant has to obtain such certificate and to forward the same to the University within one month. It is relevant to mention that Part(B) (vi) (c) of the Ordinance No. 69-A of the South Gujarat University reads as under; (8) TERMINATION OF SERVICE BY THE MANAGEMENT. Relevant part (B) (vii) (c); If there are no teachers as stated above (a), (b) and as per the policy laid down by Government for absorption of surplus teachers, the college shall first appoint existing part time teacher in the subject of the staff of the college as a full time teacher and may appoint other full time or part time teacher for additional workload in the subject". 7. The learned advocate Mr. M.M. Desai for South Gujarat University has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the notification dtd. 28.9.84 of the South Gujarat University and also the Resolution of the Syndicate which is as per Clause 8(b)(vii) of Ordinance No. 69-A of the South Gujarat University and has argued that the post of existing teacher can be converted into the post of time teacher. So, in the above circumstances now the question is only of interpretation of the Resolution. As per the circular dated 15.10.98, the South Gujarat University has approved the appointment of the applicant with conditions mentioned above. The learned advocate has submitted that the applicant is entitled for such conversion and/or promotion only with effect from 7.9.98 and the applicant is entitled for all the benefits only with effect from 7.9.98. 8. The learned advocate Mr. N.H. Shah has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the remarks filed by C.H.E on 30.12.93 and has argued that because of such conversion, the right of reservation is violated. Therefore, before effecting such conversion, the respondent college as well as the South Gujarat University have to take into consideration as to whether the part timer can be converted into full timer as there are no rules or Resolutions passed by the Government of Gujarat. He also submitted that at the time of such conversion, the reservation quota is not applied by the respondent management. He also submitted that at the time of such conversion, the reservation quota is not applied by the respondent management. The learned advocate also submitted that it should be seen that whether the applicant is entitled to be appointed as full time lecturer or is entitled for conversion from part timer to full timer because it affects the rights of S.C/S.T and O.B.C. He further submitted that the pension scheme is also not attracted for such conversion from part timer to full timer. 9. The learned advocate Mr. Shastri in reply to the arguments of the learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the Resolutions dated 17.10.80 as well as 15.10.98 of the South Gujarat University and has submitted that the applicant is entitled to be appointed as a full time lecturer as she has been working as part time lecturer in the respondent college with effect from 1981 and as per the rules if one part time lecturer is working, then the management cannot appoint another part time lecturer in the said subject. However, in case of increase in the workload of the subject of the applicant and therefore the respondent management had issued an advertisement for appointment of full time lecturer as well as part time lecturer and the applicant was not called for interview though she was fully qualified and was working as a part time lecturer in the said subject. The learned advocate submitted that in the above circumstances the respondent No. 5 is not entitled for appointment either as a part time lecturer or as a full time lecturer in the subject of the applicant. 10. After hearing all the respective parties, and taking into consideration ordinance No. 69-A of the South Gujarat University and the Circulars dated 17.10.80 and 15.10.98, I am of the view that there is no dispute that the post of the applicant can be converted into the post of full timer with effect from 7.9.98 and rightly the appointment from 7.9.98 is approved by the South Gujarat University after considering various Resolutions and circulars. It is pertinent to note that there are number of changes in the Resolutions and circulars of the Government as well as the University during the pendency of this application. It is pertinent to note that there are number of changes in the Resolutions and circulars of the Government as well as the University during the pendency of this application. The applicant is entitled to get the benefit of the Resolutions and Circulars and is rightly appointed as full time lecturer with effect from 7.9.98 by the letter of the respondent management and her appointment is rightly approved by the South Gujarat University. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hereby allow this application and declare that the applicant is entitled to continue as full time lecturer in the respondent college and is also entitled to get all the benefits as full time lecturer with effect from 7.9.98. The application stands disposed of with no order as to cots." 2.3 The Commissioner, being dissatisfied, has filed this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. According to Mr. Parikh, the College, in consultation with the University, could not have appointed the respondent No. 1 as a full time lecturer without undertaking the regular recruitment process. 4. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Parikh, the Tribunal committed an error in granting the relief as prayed for in the application. 5. Mr. Parikh, the learned AGP, prays that there being a jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the same may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. P.J. Jadeja, the learned counsel appearing for the South Gujarat University and Ms. Tejal Vasi, the learned counsel appearing for the College. They, altogether, in one voice, submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have explained, in detail, the procedure or rather the position which was prevailing before 23rd February, 1988. According to them, it is only after 23rd February, 1988 that the State Government made it very clear that the appointment on the post of a full time lecturer would be in accordance with the circular issued by them. They pointed out a very relevant fact. According to them, it is only after 23rd February, 1988 that the State Government made it very clear that the appointment on the post of a full time lecturer would be in accordance with the circular issued by them. They pointed out a very relevant fact. The dispute as regards the claim of the respondent No. 1 was looked into by all the three authorities together, i.e. the State Government, the University and the College. They pointed out that ultimately the State Government, vide letter dated 23rd February, 1988 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the South Gujarat University informed that the proposal as regards the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as a full time lecturer was being approved and accepted. In such circumstances referred to above, it has been submitted there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the averments made in this application, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the impugned order. 8. The following facts are not in dispute; "(i) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part time lecturer in 1981 by the respondent No. 2-College. (ii) In the year 1984, the College felt the necessity of appointing a full time lecturer in the subject of Biology (Home Science). (iii) The respondent No. 2-College issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of the full time lecturer in the subject of Biology. (iv) Two persons applied pursuant to the advertisement which was issued, i.e., the respondent No. 1 and one another person. (v) Later on, the College realized that it was not obligatory on their part to issue an advertisement for appointment of a full time lecturer because the respondent No. 1 was already working as a part time lecturer. If a person is serving as a part time lecturer in a College and if that College is in need of a full time lecturer, at that relevant point of time, it was permissible for the College to appoint that part time lecturer as a full time lecturer. (vi) Initially, the same was resisted by the State Government. There were lot of communications inter se between the College, University and the State Government. (vi) Initially, the same was resisted by the State Government. There were lot of communications inter se between the College, University and the State Government. (vii) Ultimately, by letter dated 23rd February, 1988, an understanding was arrived at that all the appointments on the post of the full time lecturer would be in accordance with the procedure laid down by the State Government, i.e., all the appointments after 23rd February, 1988." 9. Let me quote the letter dated 23rd February, 1988 of the State Government addressed to the Vice Chancellor, South Gujarat University, Surat. The free English translation of the same is as under; "Sir, With reference to the communication of the Chancellor, South Gujarat University, Surat No. S-14671 dated 23.11.1987, it is stated that, additional confirmation which is mentioned in the captioned communication, the Government has considered the case that those teachers who were on part time basis, in future, they will be regularized against the regular vacant post. It is hereby informed that as per your above mentioned communication, the Syndicate dated 21.11.1987, the resolution at Sr. No. 49, in its 10th line, reading as "in future, when necessity arises, then" is required to be read as "in future, when seats are available, then" and is to be interpreted accordingly. The proposal of the University is hereby accepted." 10. In view of the above, I fail to understand why so much resistance is being offered by the State Government. Having already resolved the issue, why the respondent No. 1 is being paid Rs. 6300/- per month towards the salary and, more particularly, when she is working as a full time lecturer from 1984 onwards. 11. I should be conscious of the fact that I am dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court and the Tribunal functions within the limit of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority over the Tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority over the Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or the Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. 12. In my view, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal and, more particularly, in view of the decision which was taken by the State Government at the relevant point of time. I am constrained to observe that this fact should have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the Government itself. The fact I am referring to is the letter dated 23rd February, 1988. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this application fails and is hereby rejected. The order passed by the Tribunal is affirmed. Let me clarify one more aspect. When this application was admitted, no interim order was passed. In fact, the State Government is indirectly in contempt. Despite there being a specific order of the Tribunal to extend all the benefits which a full time lecturer is entitled to, the respondent No. 1 is being paid Rs. 6300/- per month, i.e., the salary which was paid to her as a part time lecturer. It is very disturbing to note that despite one execution application which is pending as on date before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 is receiving Rs. 6300/- per month. I will be failing in my duty and, more particularly, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227of the Constitution of India if I don't pass any further orders. It is declared that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive the regular salary of a full time lecturer payable under the rules and regulations. From next month onwards, she shall be paid the regular salary. So far as the arrears towards the difference of the salary is concerned, i.e., from the year 2001 till this date, the same shall be calculated at the earliest and the same be paid to the respondent No. 1 with interest at the rate of 8.5% within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. If any fresh proposal is necessary to be forwarded by the College, let the College do so at the earliest. On receipt of such proposal, necessary orders shall be passed by the State Government. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.