JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 15.09.2016 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition passed by the Director declaring the post of the petitioner and seven other persons as ex cadre post mentioning therein that no seniority or administrative post will be given and the Government Order dated 15.10.2010 contained as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition issued by the State Government declaring the post of eight Assistant Professors including the petitioner as ex cadre post in as much as the order dated 09.08.2018, passed by respondent No.3 contained as Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that Advertisement No.22/2003-04 was published inviting applications against five posts of Assistant Professor in Clinical Immunology. Out of five posts, one post was for General Category Candidate, two posts for Scheduled Caste Category candidates and two posts for OBC Category candidates. 4. In the advertisement, it was prescribed that the reservation and age relaxation for all reserved category candidates including the reservation in physically handicapped, dependent of freedom fighter, ex serviceman shall be applicable as per Government rules and orders issued from time to time. 5. The petitioner vide application dated 30.01.2004 applied for the post of Assistant Professor Clinical Immunology under OBC Category. The Selection Committee duly constituted selected the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor and recommended for appointment placing the petitioner at serial No.1 and the appointing authority thereafter issued the appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor on 09.09.2004. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined on the post and started discharging the duties. 6. The petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 01.07.2009 vide order dated 27.01.2012 and thereafter, granted promotion as Additional Professor w.e.f. 01.07.2011 vide order dated 27.01.2012 and thereafter, as Professor w.e.f. 01.07.2015 vide order dated 25.02.2016. The certificate of OBC category was issued in favour of the petitioner by the State of Kerala being the petitioner Christian Latin Catholic. 7. The certificate of OBC category was issued in favour of the petitioner by the State of Kerala being the petitioner Christian Latin Catholic. 7. In the advertisement, there was no stipulation that the candidates who belong to the State of Uttar Pradesh, are entitled to apply for the appointment or the candidates outside the State of Uttar Pradesh are not entitled to apply. 8. The State Government vide letter dated 02.03.2005 sought clarification from the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, “SGPGIMS”) on the question raised in the House with respect to appointment of domiciles of other State on reserve category post. The SGPGIMS vide letter dated 04.04.2005 defended the appointment on the ground of non availability of eligible persons in super specialty course and equivalence with All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). 9. The State Government vide letter dated 29.03.2006 informed to the Legislative Assembly pointing out that no one is guilty of any violation. On 16.10.2007, a complaint was filed (not with respect to petitioner or his selection) before the Backward Class Commission stating therein that the post of reserved category in Radiotherapy Department of PGI is filled from those candidates, who are not from state of Uttar Pradesh and belong to some other states. 10. In response thereto, vide letter dated 22.03.2008, the Backward Class Commission recommended to the SGPGIMS to appoint those candidates, who are under reserved category from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. proposed for creation of supernumery post declaring those appointments, which were made at earlier point of time from other states to be ex cadre posts. 11. Thereafter, the order was passed by the Director on 15.09.2016 declaring the post of petitioner and seven other Professors as ex cadre post with the stipulation that no seniority or administrative post shall be provided to the professors appointed from out side the state of U.P. and in this regard, a Government Order was also issued on 15.10.2010 declaring the post of eight Assistant Professors including the petitioner to be ex cadre post. 12. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed a reference under Section 36 of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983. In pursuance thereto, the Visitor issued a letter on 23.02.2017 to submit reply on the comments of SGPGIMS. In response to the letter of the Visitor, the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.03.2017. 13. 12. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed a reference under Section 36 of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983. In pursuance thereto, the Visitor issued a letter on 23.02.2017 to submit reply on the comments of SGPGIMS. In response to the letter of the Visitor, the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.03.2017. 13. The respondent No.2 - (Visitor) vide decision dated 06.04.2018 set aside the order dated 15.09.2016 of the Director, SGPGIMS, Lucknow and issued direction to place the matter before the competent authority/Chief Secretary/President of the SGPGIMS for passing of appropriate order keeping in view the position of law and the relevant government orders. 14. The Chief Secretary/President of the SGPGIMS, Lucknow vide decision dated 09.08.2018 directed to the administrative department, State Government and the Director of the institute to act in accordance with the decision taken vide Government Order dated 15.10.2010, which has also been assailed in the writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 15. Assailing the impugned orders, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 19(2)(f) of SGPGIMS Act, 1983, which provides right of governing body to create and abolish post in the institute. He further relied upon Section 22 of SGPGIMS Act, 1983, wherein power of the President has been provided defining the appointing authority in as much as the provisions of Section 36 of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983, which prescribes reference to the Visitor. 16. He further placed reliance upon Regulation 52 of SGPGIMS First Regulation, 2011, which prescribes that the President is the appointing authority of the Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Class-I Officer. Section 55 and 56 of SGPGIMS Act, 1983 prescribes recruitment to Assistant Professor by way of direct recruitment on merit and recruitment of Associate Professor, Additional Professor shall be made on the basis of assessment promotion and process of nomination of experts and assessment promotion scheme of AIIMS is to be made applicable. 17. Further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government has no power to issue government orders in regard to selection and appointment in SGPGIMS, Lucknow. 18. 17. Further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government has no power to issue government orders in regard to selection and appointment in SGPGIMS, Lucknow. 18. He next submitted that once the Visitor has set aside the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Director, then the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by respondent No.3 based on the government order dated 15.10.2010 cannot sustain on the ground that the government order issued on 15.10.2010 is wholly without jurisdiction. 19. He submitted that the impugned orders dated 15.09.2016, 15.10.2010 and 09.08.2018 have been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice as prior to passing of the aforesaid orders, neither notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 20. His further submission is that the selection of the petitioner was made by a duly constituted selection committee and the appointment letter was issued with the approval of the President of the institute and almost more than 12 years have passed, therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 21. He next submitted that in the appointment letter there is no condition or stipulation, which entitles the respondents to pass the impugned orders making rider that the post held by the petitioner shall be treated to be ex cadre post and the petitioner will not be entitled to get administrative post. Therefore, the stipulation laid down in the impugned orders is illegal and contrary to the appointment letter of the petitioner. 22. He further submitted that Regulation 57 provides that assessment promotion scheme for faculty of members prevalent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi shall mutatis mutandis apply and on bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that on teaching posts in SGPGIMS shall be made applicable as of AIIMS, New Delhi and in AIIMS, New Delhi there is no such restriction of domicile for reservation. 23. He next submitted that the initial advertisement does not provide that the candidates, who are domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh shall only apply for the appointment against the vacancy advertised. Therefore, the restriction imposed holding the petitioner’s post to be ex cadre post and no administrative post shall be provided is wholly unjustified and unreasonable. 24. 23. He next submitted that the initial advertisement does not provide that the candidates, who are domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh shall only apply for the appointment against the vacancy advertised. Therefore, the restriction imposed holding the petitioner’s post to be ex cadre post and no administrative post shall be provided is wholly unjustified and unreasonable. 24. He further submitted that caste of the petitioner finds place in the list of OBC Category of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to declare the post of the petitioner as ex cadre post. The petitioner fulfills the requirement of U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. 25. His last submission is that SGPGIMS is bound by the principles of estoppel and now at this stage, the institution cannot be allowed to take U-turn and to change its stand. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and others,1993 2 BLJR 854 and another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.S. Mudhol and another Vs. S.D. Halegkar and others; passed in SLP (C) No.16256 of 1992 decided on 13.07.1993. 26. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 justified the impugned orders and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the State Government in issuing the Government Order. The Government Order is just and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 27. Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Visitor has taken decision on 06.04.2018 holding the order dated 15.09.2016 to be invalid but in regard to issuance of government order at the level of State Government, he has no authority to annul the same. Therefore, his submission is that the order dated 09.08.2018 is just and valid. 28. Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made in contravention of the provisions of Act of 1994. The petitioner does not belong to the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, he was not entitled to get appointment under OBC Category in the State of U.P. Thus, no illegality has been committed in passing the order at the level of SGPGIMS, Lucknow and the State Government. The petitioner does not belong to the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, he was not entitled to get appointment under OBC Category in the State of U.P. Thus, no illegality has been committed in passing the order at the level of SGPGIMS, Lucknow and the State Government. 29. He further submitted that under the Act, the State Government is competent to issue government orders and the Chief Secretary is the President of SGPGIMS, therefore, by placing the petitioner in ex cadre and providing that he shall not be provided administrative post, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illgality. 30. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the law reports relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 31. To resolve the controversy, certain provisions of SGPGIMS Act, 1983 and regulations of 2011 are being quoted below: “22. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, such number of Professors, Associate Professors and Class I officers, as may be necessary, shall be appointed by the President, and such number of class II officers, as may be necessary, shall be appointed by the Director. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1) the officers, teachers and other employees of the Institute shall be appointed in such manner and with such designations and grades as may be laid down in the regulations. (3) The officers, teachers and other employees of the Institute appointed under this Act shall be entitled to such salary and allowances and shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be laid down in the regulations. (4) No person shall be appointed as a teacher of the Institute, unless he fulfils the qualifications laid down in the regulations in this behalf, and except as provided in sub-section (9), is recommended for such appointment by a Selection Committee constituted in this behalf under this Act. (5) The Selection Committee for the appointment of a Professor or Head of Department of the Institute shall consist of-- (a) the Director, (b) the Director of Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh; (c) three experts to be nominated by the Visitor; (d) such other persons as may be prescribed. Provided that in the case of the appointment of a Professor, the Head of Department concerned shall also be a member of the Selection Committee. Provided that in the case of the appointment of a Professor, the Head of Department concerned shall also be a member of the Selection Committee. (6) The Selection Committee for the appointment of a teacher, other than a Professor or Head of Department of the Institute, shall consist of-- (a) the Director; (b) the Director of Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh; (c) Heads of the Departments; (d) two experts nominated by the Visitor; (e) such other persons as may be prescribed. (7) The Selection Committee constituted under this Act shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed by the rules or laid down in the regulations. (8) No recommendation made by the Selection Committee shall be considered to be valid, unless it is supported by a majority of the members present: Provided that in the case of a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (5), the presence of at least two experts, and in the case of a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (6), the presence of at least one expert shall be necessary. (9) Where the Selection Committee fails to make recommendation in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (7), the minutes of the Selection Committee shall be submitted to the President which shall forward the same, along with its views thereon, to the Visitor for his decision and the decision of the Visitor shall be final. (10) Where the recommendation of the Selection Committee are not acceptable to the appointing authority, it shall refer the whole case to the Visitor specifying the grounds of objection to such recommendations in precise terms, and the decision of the Visitor thereon shall be final: Provided that it shall be lawful for the Visitor to refer the case to the Selection Committee for reconsideration or to require another Selection Committee to be constituted for reconsideration of the case. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, class I officers and class II officers shall be such class of officers and are specified or designated as such in the regulations. 36. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, class I officers and class II officers shall be such class of officers and are specified or designated as such in the regulations. 36. If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be, a member of the Institute, Governing Body, any authority or other body of the Institute or whether any decision of the Institutes, Governing body or any authority or other body of the Institute is in conformity with this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder the matter shall be referred to the Visitor and the decision of the Visitor shall be final: Provided that no reference made under this section shall be made more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time; Provided further that the Visitor may in exceptional circumstances act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso. Regulation 52 of SGPGIMS First Regulation, 2011 : The President shall be the appointing authority in respect of Professors, Additional Professors, Assistant Professors, and all Group A posts. The Director shall be the appointing authority in respect of Groups B, C and D posts. Regulation 55 (1) Recruitment to the posts of Professors, Additional Professors, Associate Professors shall be made by assessment promotion or by direct recruitment on merit. (2) Recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor shall be made by direct recruitment on merit. 56. (1) A panel of experts in each department shall be prepared by the Board of Studies and approved by the Academic Board. (2) The Director shall send six or more names from the panel of experts in each department to the Visitor for approval against the advertisement for direct recruitment or for assessment promotion. (3) The Visitor may make such modifications and additions to the panel of experts, as he may deem fit, and nominate experts to the selection committee from such modified list. 57. Assessment promotion scheme for faculty members prevalent at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi shall mutatis mutandis apply.” 32. (3) The Visitor may make such modifications and additions to the panel of experts, as he may deem fit, and nominate experts to the selection committee from such modified list. 57. Assessment promotion scheme for faculty members prevalent at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi shall mutatis mutandis apply.” 32. On perusal of the relevant provisions in regard to selection and appointment of SGPGIMS Act, 1983 and regulations framed thereunder, it is transpired that the Selection Committee was constituted to make selection after issuing advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications. In the advertisement there was no rider imposed by the appointing authority that after the selection, the promotion shall be made in ex cadre and no administrative post shall be granted to the selected candidates. 33. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with Section 22 of the SGPGIMS Act, 1983 selected the petitioner by following the procedure prescribed under the act and thereafter, the appointing authority issued appointment letter to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined and continued to discharge duties and taking into account his satisfactory work and prescribed qualification, he was granted promotion from time to time and now he is holding the post of Professor. 34. The State Government vide Government Order dated 15.10.2010 and order dated 15.09.2016 held that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of reservation in the State of U.P., as he does not belong to the State of U.P. and belongs to the State of Kerala. 35. On a reference filed by the petitioner under Section 36 of SGPGIMS Act, 1983 before the Visitor of the institute against the impugned orders dated 15.09.2016 and 15.10.2010, after issuance of notices, the Visitor on consideration of the material on record passed an order on 06.04.2018, whereby the order dated 15.09.2016 was set aside and in regard to issuance of government order, the Visitor recorded the finding that the same is not amenable to be decided in reference, thus, the same has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. 36. In spite of decision taken by the Visitor on reference, the Chief Secretary/President of SGPGIMS, Lucknow vide decision dated 09.08.2018 directed to the administrative department of the State Government and to the Director of the institute to act in accordance with the decision taken vide Government Order dated 15.10.2010. 37. 36. In spite of decision taken by the Visitor on reference, the Chief Secretary/President of SGPGIMS, Lucknow vide decision dated 09.08.2018 directed to the administrative department of the State Government and to the Director of the institute to act in accordance with the decision taken vide Government Order dated 15.10.2010. 37. On perusal of the Government Order, it is evident on the face of it that the Chief Secretary while issuing the government order has not considered that in the advertisement there was no rider imposed that the candidates of reserved category outside the state of U.P. shall not apply for the selection and appointment. The Selection Committee constituted under the Act of 1983 also did not raise objection at any stage that the petitioner does not belong to the State of U.P., therefore, his appointment cannot be considered under the reserved category. 38. In case the advertisement does not contain any rider in this regard and the selection of the petitioner has been made by following the procedure prescribed under the SGPGIMS Act, 1983 and regulations framed thereunder, the State Government has no authority in law to interfere in the promotion of the petitioner and to hold the administrative post on the basis of seniority. 39. Once the appointment of the petitioner has been made by a duly constituted Selection Committee by following the procedure prescribed under law, his consequential benefits to the service avenues cannot be stopped. The rider in regard to non grant of promotion to a selected candidate of reserved category, at best, can be made available to the State Government in future selection by issuing an advertisement levelling prohibition to apply for the candidates belonging to the other states. 40. In view of non imposing of prohibition to apply in the selection proceeding, if a selection has been made in accordance with the Act of 1983 and regulations framed thereunder, after grant of promotion at several stages, the petitioner cannot be denied for getting seniority and administrative post as per the provisions contained under the act and regulations framed thereunder. 41. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Mudhol and another (Supra) while dealing with the matter of an employee, who was holding the post of Principal from year 1981 and at the first time his appointment was challenged in year 1990 i.e. after a lapse of about nine years, has held as under: “5. As regards the teaching experience, the 1st respondent’s contention is that he had worked as a teacher for 9 years in a High School and Higher Secondary School which had upto 11 standards. According to him, he also worked as a Lecturer in History. His further contention is that the post of the School Inspector in Karnataka where he was working as such and that of the teacher were interchangeable. Hence the selection committee had taken into consideration his experience in both the capacities. These facts are not controverted before us and in any case today, he has the requisite experience of teaching as he has been teaching the 11th and the 12th class continuously for 12 years now, since 1981. It can, therefore, be said that at least as on date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought, he cannot be said to be disqualified on account of the lack of required teaching experience. 6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, inspite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequities to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same. 7. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same. 7. Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-discovery of the want of qualifications of the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact remains that the Court was moved in the matter after a long lapse of about 9 years. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. In the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto would lie in the present case or not, and further whether mere laches would disentitle the petitioners to such a writ. 8. However, we must make it clear that in the present case the 2nd respondent, Director of Education had committed a clear error of law in approving the academic qualifications of the 1st respondent when he was not so qualified. As pointed out above, the interpretation placed by him and the other respondents on the requisite educational qualifications was not correct and the appointments made on the basis of such misinterpretation are liable to be quashed as being illegal. Let this be noted for future guidance.” 42. The similar view has been taken in the case of Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Supra), wherein the University invited applications vide advertisement dated 12.10.1983 for appointment on ten posts of Assistant Professors (Lecturers). The last date for submitting the application was 14.11.1983. Out of 112 applications received, the scrutiny committee of the University recommended 106 candidates on 25.04.1984 for being interviewed. The remaining 6 candidates were found un-eligible for the post. Out of 106 candidates so recommended, only 65 candidates appeared in the interview, out of which the scrutiny committee selected 8 candidates. The last date for submitting the application was 14.11.1983. Out of 112 applications received, the scrutiny committee of the University recommended 106 candidates on 25.04.1984 for being interviewed. The remaining 6 candidates were found un-eligible for the post. Out of 106 candidates so recommended, only 65 candidates appeared in the interview, out of which the scrutiny committee selected 8 candidates. Out of 8 candidates, 2 candidates were earmarked for reserved category post. Taking into consideration the dispute and the provisions contained under the Act of the University and statute framed thereunder, the Court has held as under: “12. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vidanagaram & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237 . 13. However, for the reasons which follow, we are not inclined to set aside the selections in spite of the said illegality. The selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since February 1985. We are now in January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, ‘it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. We, however, feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith. it is for this purpose that we lay down the following guidelines for the future selection process: (a) The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its ordinance/Statutes. (b) The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question, or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. (b) The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question, or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better then those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration. (c). When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement/notification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal. (d) The University/Selection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made. (e) The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not available. 14. Although, therefore, for reasons stated above, we deem it inadvisable to interfere in the selections made in the present case, we direct that the University and its Selection Committee should observe the above norms in all future selections.” 43. In the present case, on perusal of the entire material on record it is well established that almost 12 years have passed and in accordance with the Act of 1983 and regulations framed thereunder the selection was made. Neither there is violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement nor there is lackness in the qualification prescribed under the aforesaid act and regulations. Neither there is violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement nor there is lackness in the qualification prescribed under the aforesaid act and regulations. The respondents also at no point of time challenged the selection of the petitioner on the ground that he belongs to outside State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the reservation will not be made available to him and the selection made from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh under reserve quota of OBC category is not valid. Thus, the respondents had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment of the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that it would be inequities to make him suffer for the act of the respondents. 44. In the aforesaid two judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the material on record has held that the Director of Education in granting approval had committed clear error of law and saved the appointment of the Principal with certain directions. Here, in the present case, the petitioner is not lacking the required qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. A duly constituted selection committee on the basis of conditions laid down in the advertisement made selection of the petitioner. Neither there is violation of the conditions of the advertisement nor the provisions of the Act of 1983 or provisions of the regulations have been violated, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the State Government and President/Chief Secretary are wholly illegal. 45. In regard to the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner of violation of principles of natural justice, on perusal of the impugned orders it is apparent on the face of it that at no point of time prior to passing of the orders dated 15.10.2010 and 09.08.2018, the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to file his defense. Therefore, the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. 46. On over all consideration of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be denied the consequential benefits, which were available to him on the basis of seniority fixed in the institute. 47. In view of the observation made above, the impugned orders dated 15.10.2010 and 09.08.2018 are hereby set aside. 48. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 47. In view of the observation made above, the impugned orders dated 15.10.2010 and 09.08.2018 are hereby set aside. 48. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, the respondents are directed to provide all the consequential benefits available to the petitioner in accordance with the act and statutes and will not treat the petitioner in ex cadre service and will not exclude the petitioner in providing the benefit of seniority in service avenues and to hold the administrative post.