JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is working as Typist in Lingaraj Law College, has filed this writ petition to quash letter dated 11.01.2005 in Annexure-5 issued by the Registrar, Berhampur University inviting show-cause as to why his services shall not be terminated. 2. The fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that Lingaraj Law College is a constituent College of Berhampur University Two posts of Junior Assistant and one post of Typist were sanctioned by the Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education and duly approved by the Chancellor with revision of pay scale as per Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1985. One Smt. Swarnalata Padhi was appointed in the sanctioned post of Typist and she joined on 21.03.1986. Her post was re-designated as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 21.03.1986, by modifying office order dated 10.05.1988, w.e.f. 12.03.1988, and consequentially, the petitioner was appointed in the vacant post of Junior Typist. On 26.09.1989, Smt. Swarnalata Padhi was confirmed in the post of Junior Assistant by order of the Vice-Chancellor w.e.f. 21.03.1988. The petitioner was earlier working as a Typist on daily wage basis in the year 1991 under the University and functioning under the Principal, Lingaraj Law College, Berhampur, which is a constituent College of the University. But, subsequently on 29.03.1994, he was appointed temporarily on contractual basis as Typist in Lingaraj Law college, Berhampur in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500/- by following due procedure of selection. He was confirmed against the approved post of Typist w.e.f. 29.03.1997 by the order of the competent authority. Consequentially, he was granted increments and other service benefits by the University from time to time raising his pay in which he is continuing. His pay was fixed as per Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 at the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also granted increments by raising his pay as provided in the said scale of pay as a Junior Typist. 2.1. His pay was fixed as per Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 at the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also granted increments by raising his pay as provided in the said scale of pay as a Junior Typist. 2.1. While the petitioner was continuing as a confirmed Junior Typist against the sanctioned post and enjoying the scale of pay prescribed for the said post, the Registrar of the University issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services shall not be terminated on the plea that his appointment is against a non-sanctioned/non-existent post, as he was appointed temporarily on contractual basis in the post of Junior Typist, against which one Smt. Swarnalata Padhi was appointed as Junior Typist, but she was illegally re-designated as Junior Assistant and also she was illegally promoted to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 06.01.1999. As one Sri N.K. Jena Samanta, who was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer from the post of Section Officer, was reverted to the post of Section Officer, consequentially, Smt. Padhi was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. There being two sanctioned posts of Junior Assistant in Lingaraj Law College and since three persons have been shown in the post Junior Assistant, therefore, Smt. Padhi reverted back to the post of Junior Typist and, thereby, the services of the petitioner were to be terminated. 2.2. In response to the said show case notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and brought the fact to the notice of the authorities that he was appointed against a clear vacancy in the post of Typist through due process of selection and confirmed in the said post. When he was appointed, Smt. Swarnalata Padhi was functioning as Junior Assistant against the sanctioned post of Junior Assistant. She was also promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. The appointment of the petitioner since was made against the sanctioned/approved post of Typist and since he has completed more than 10 years of service and the post of Junior Typist is available, therefore, requested that no action should be taken against him. Since there was threat of termination of service, the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court. 3. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Since there was threat of termination of service, the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court. 3. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence stating, inter alia, if the petitioner was continuing against the sanctioned and approved post of Junior Typist by following due procedure of selection and was granted regular scale of pay as due and admissible to the post and consequentially was paid incremental benefits and already rendered more than 10 years of service, notice of show-cause for termination from service cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, the proposed action of termination of the petitioner is also without any application of mind and the same is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Mr. B.S. Mishra-2, learned counsel for opposite party-University per contra submitted that the employees of the constituent College, namely, Lingaraj Law College constitute a separate/different cadre than that of the employees of University cadre and are not inter- changeable. In the year 1983, the Principal of the College requested/proposed the University to create some posts for the College, including that of the post of Administrative Officer, where after the University moved the Chancellor for creation of the post in the College. Since the Principal of the College again moved the University in the year 1988 for creation of the post of Administrative Officer, the matter was taken up by the Syndicate of the University on 08.10.1996 and it was decided to fill up the post of Administrative Officer on ad hoc basis. Pursuant to such decision, one Sri N.K. Jena Samant, who was then working as Section Officer in the College, was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer on 21.12.1996 on ad hoc basis and in anticipation of approval/creation of the post by the Chancellor. Due to such ad hoc promotion of Sri Jena Samanta to the post of Administrative Officer, a consequential vacancy of Section Officer arose against which one Sadasiva Sabat, who was working as Senior Assistant of the College was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 05.01.1999 and such promotion was provisional and subject to approval of the Chancellor. Due to such ad hoc promotion of Sri Jena Samanta to the post of Administrative Officer, a consequential vacancy of Section Officer arose against which one Sadasiva Sabat, who was working as Senior Assistant of the College was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 05.01.1999 and such promotion was provisional and subject to approval of the Chancellor. Due to promotion of Sri Sabat, a consequential vacancy in the post of Senior Assistant arose and against such vacancy, Smt. Swarnalata Padhy, who was working as Junior Assistant in the College, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 05.01.1999, which was also subject to approval of the competent authority. It is further contended that Smt. Swarnalata Padhy was initially appointed as Typist, but in an illegal manner, she was re-designated as Junior Assistant on 10.05.1988 from the post of Typist. Due to such promotion, a post of Junior Assistant arose and against such vacancy, Sri P. Ramababu was temporarily appointed as Junior Assistant on 05.03.1999 It is further contended that consequent upon such re-designation of Smt. Swarnalata Padhy from the post of Typist to the post of Junior Assistant, the post of Typist fallen vacant and the petitioner was appointed against the said post on 29.03.1994. But subsequently, when the post of Administrative Officer was not approved, Mr. N.K. Jena Samanta, who was appointed as Administrative Officer, was reverted to his original post, i.e., Section Officer, vide order dated 22.10.2003, and the persons, who were promoted accordingly reverted to their original posts. Therefore, the Registrar, Berhampur University issued notice of show-cause to the petitioner so as to terminate him from service, i.e., from the post of Typist. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority. It is further contended that against such order of reversion dated 22.10.2003, Sri Jena Samanta filed WP(C) No. 8758 of 2003 before this Court which is now pending for adjudication and in the meantime, he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006. Similarly, Sri Sadasiva Sabat filed W P.(C) No. 8826 of 2003 which is pending for adjudication but in the meantime, he has expired on 02.06.2005. However, Smt. Swarnalata Padhy has not challenged her order of reversion and she is continuing as Junior Assistant in the College. Similarly, Sri Sadasiva Sabat filed W P.(C) No. 8826 of 2003 which is pending for adjudication but in the meantime, he has expired on 02.06.2005. However, Smt. Swarnalata Padhy has not challenged her order of reversion and she is continuing as Junior Assistant in the College. In the meantime, since the University took steps to terminate the service of Sri P. Ramababu from the post of Junior Assistant (as there is no post of Junior Assistant), he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 8481 of 2003 wherein, vide order dated 25.08.2003, this Court passed interim order for maintaining status quo in respect of his service and in obedience to the said order, he is continuing in his post and the said matter is pending for adjudication. Thereby, it is contended that the Registrar, Berhampur University is justified in his action to issue notice of show-cause to the petitioner for termination of his service. 5. This Court heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State; and Mr. B.S. Mishra-2, learned counsel for the opposite party-University. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. The facts which are undisputed are that the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned/approved post of Typist and discharged the duties assigned to him by granting scale of pay and increments to the post. In the meantime, he has already completed more than 10 years of service. While the petitioner was continuing against the sanctioned and approved post of Typist, Smt. Swarnalata Padhy, who was initially appointed against such post, was re-designated as Junior Assistant, and subsequently she was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Since the post of Administrative Officer was not approved by the competent authority, all the persons, who were promoted, were reverted. As such, challenging their reversion orders, Sri Jena Samanta filed W.P.(C) No. 8758 of 2003 and Sri Sabat filed W.P.(C) No. 8826 of 2003, which are still pending before this Court for adjudication. In the meantime, Sri Jena Samanta has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006 and Sri Sadasiva Sabat has expired on 02.06.2005. As such, challenging their reversion orders, Sri Jena Samanta filed W.P.(C) No. 8758 of 2003 and Sri Sabat filed W.P.(C) No. 8826 of 2003, which are still pending before this Court for adjudication. In the meantime, Sri Jena Samanta has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006 and Sri Sadasiva Sabat has expired on 02.06.2005. Therefore, the posts held by above two persons as Section Officer after reversion and Senior Assistant have fallen vacant. In the event Smt. Swarnalata Padhy will be given promotion, then two regular posts will remain vacant. 7. It is of relevance to mention that appointment is the end result of the process of selection In State of U.P. v. M.J. Siddiqui, AIR 1980 SC 1098 : (1980) 3 SCC 174 , the apex Court held that in order to determine the nature of the appointment, one has to look to the heart and substance of the matter, the surrounding circumstances, the mode, the manner and the terms of appointment and other relevant factors. In K.C. Joshi v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1046 : (1985) 3 SCC 153 , the apex Court held that appointment to a substantive post and appointment in a substantive capacity are different things. It is the substantive appointment which makes a person a member of a service. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, AIR 2009 SC 157 : (2009) 12 SCC 49 , the apex Court held that a person becomes member of a service on satisfying four conditions, namely:- (i) Appointment must be in a substantive capacity. (ii) The appointment must be to a post in the service, i.e., in a substantive vacancy. (iii) The appointment must be made in accordance with rules. (iv) The appointment must be within the quota prescribed for the source. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Parveen Kumari, AIR 1996 SC 2226 : (1996) 4 SCC 560 , the apex Court held that it is obvious that without the existence of posts or vacancies in such posts, the question of recruitment could not arise. 8. (iv) The appointment must be within the quota prescribed for the source. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Parveen Kumari, AIR 1996 SC 2226 : (1996) 4 SCC 560 , the apex Court held that it is obvious that without the existence of posts or vacancies in such posts, the question of recruitment could not arise. 8. Applying the above settled position of law laid down by the apex Court to the present context, it appears that due to interchangeability of the post by Smt. Swarnalata Padhy, who was initially appointed as Typist and was allowed to join as a Junior Assistant, and consequential vacancy of post lying vacant, against such post, the petitioner was appointed by following due process of selection and recruitment in accordance with law. Thereby, he was continuing against substantive vacancy by following due process of selection In consonance with the law laid down by the apex Court as discussed above. Since the petitioner has been issued with notice of show-cause for termination of service, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 9. This Court, vide order dated 24.02.2005., passed the following interim order: "As an interim measure, opposite parties 2 and 4 are directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 11.01.2005 (Annexure-5) or otherwise without leave of this Court." By virtue of said order, the petitioner is still continuing in service. Therefore, after long lapse of more than 30 years, this Court does not want to unsettle the settled position because of some irregularities committed by the authority at some part of time for some reasons or the other. Thereby, this Court is of the considered view that since the regular vacancies are available because of superannuation of Sri N.K. Jena Samanta and premature death of Sri Sadasiva Sabat, there will be no legal impediment on the part of the opposite parties to adjust the petitioner in any post befitting his qualification, if he cannot be accommodated in the post of Typist. Therefore, the letter dated 11.01.2005 issued by the Registrar, Berhampur University in Annexure-5, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services shall not be' terminated, cannot sustain in the eye of law. The same is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The opposite parties no. Therefore, the letter dated 11.01.2005 issued by the Registrar, Berhampur University in Annexure-5, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services shall not be' terminated, cannot sustain in the eye of law. The same is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The opposite parties no. 2 to 5 are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Typist, as before, in any of the consequential vacancies caused due to retirement of Sri N.K. Jena Samanta and premature death of Sri Sadasiva Sabat, and be granted consequential benefits in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.