JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Collages Services Tribunal in Application No.12 of 1997 and has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the present petition (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ certiorari or mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, in Application No.12 of 1997 filed by respondent No.4; and further be pleased to allow Application No.76 of 1996 filed by the petitioner in toto; (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased [i] to stay and suspend the execution, implementation, operation and enforcement of the judgment and order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, [Annexure “G”]; [ii] to direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 not to prevent the petitioner from working as Lecturer and/or part-time Lecturer in the subject of Philosophy; (D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) may kindly be granted. (E) And to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper.” 2. Heard Mr. Prashant Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, learned advocate for Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 – Bhavnagar University and Mr. Subhash G. Barot, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus: 3.1 The petitioner herein came to be appointed by the respondent No.1 – college as part time Lecturer with effect from 19.12.1989 in the subject of Philosophy. The name of the petitioner figured at serial no.1. A copy of the appointment order dated 19.12.1989 is duly produced at Annexure – A. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 13.05.1996 for the post of Lecturer being Advertisement No.2/96; duly produced at page 156 to 159. The petitioner applied for the said post. A copy of the appointment order dated 19.12.1989 is duly produced at Annexure – A. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 13.05.1996 for the post of Lecturer being Advertisement No.2/96; duly produced at page 156 to 159. The petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was also called for interview however, the petitioner was not selected for the said post due to following reasons : (true translation) “In the judgment by the Tribunal in Shri Mehta’s Appeal No. 76/1996, it has been held that Shri Mehta was ordinarily working as a Part-time Lecturer and as he has not been selected in the viva voce test, a procedure established by the law, he is not entitled to appointment as a full-time lecturer. (Copy appended) The resolution dated 29/12/1980 was in effect till 1995. Thereafter, the State Government has changed the policy and the said interview was held in 1996. Therefore, Shri Mehta’s demand on the basis of the resolution of 1980 does not seem appropriate. Shri Mehta took part in the viva voce test. The Selection Committee conducting interview has not selected him. Therefore, the demand for his appointment as a full-time lecturer on the basis of his work-charge and other grounds and without following all the procedure does not seem appropriate. Therefore, in view of all the aforesaid facts, the Department is of clear opinion that the demand of applicant Shri Mehta is not admissible. As ordered, it is requested to proceed further accordingly.” 3.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Gujarat Affiliated College Service Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing an application being Application No.76 of 1996. The respondent No.4 was the selected candidate in the said selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. However, by way of interim relief, one seat was kept vacant till the Application No.76 of 1996 and Application No.12 of 1997, were decided together. The respondent No.4 was the selected candidate in the said selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. However, by way of interim relief, one seat was kept vacant till the Application No.76 of 1996 and Application No.12 of 1997, were decided together. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 12.01.2007, allowed the Application No.12 of 1997 whereby, the applicant of the said application i.e. respondent No.4 herein, appeared before the Selection Committee, was selected and appointed by the Authority upon following due procedure whereas, the application filed by the petitioner herein being Application No.76 of 1996 wherein also, the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee but, was not selected and in view thereof, it is held by the Tribunal that the petitioner is not entitled to continue or to be appointed as full time Lecturer in the service of respondent No.3 – college and the Application No.76 of 1996 came to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Prashant Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner herein, relied upon the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 and submitted that the said Government Resolution provided for promotion of part time Lecturer to full time Lecturer upon completion of service of 3 years as part time Lecturer and in view thereof, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in light of the said Government Resolution. It is submitted that the petitioner came to be appointed as a part time Lecturer by appointment order dated 19.12.1989 duly produced at page 22 and upon completion of 3 years, the petitioner was required to be promoted as full time Lecturer in the respondent – University. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is governed by the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 and the prayers, as prayed for by the petitioner, are required to be allowed and the petitioner is required to be granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980. 5. Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 – Bhavnagar University, submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court dated 26.07.2023, the respondent – University has forwarded a proposal to the respondent – State in consonance with a letter issued by the Principal of College to the Vice Chancellor, Bhavnagar University, dated 08.09.1992 regarding vacancy of one post of Lecturer since the year 1992. Reliance is placed on an appointment order issued by the respondent – University, which is duly produced at Annexure – R3, page 154, appointing the petitioner as a Lecturer. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that in the said appointment order, condition No.7 provides that as the posts have been sanctioned for a specific period by the government, no claim for regularization can be made in future. The said appointments have been made due to increase in workload during the said educational semester and no claim of re-appointment or regularization of the posts can be made in future. 6. Ms. Pooja K. Ashar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.3, placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3 duly produced at page 119 wherein, the communication dated 18.11.2019 from the respondent No.1 – College is placed on record. Reliance is also placed on a further affidavit duly produced at page 143, which is filed in compliance of the orders dated 09.08.2023 and 05.12.2023. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the respondent No.4 is granted appointment and a copy of the order is duly annexed at page 107. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has worked as part time for long and should have been considered to be selected as permanent Lecturer however, the said prayer was not considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that for the appointment of full time Lecturer, the University had conducted interview in which, the petitioner participated however, was not selected and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as full time Lecturer. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the respondent No.3 has duly complied with the order passed by the Court from time to time and that, the present petition be dismissed. 7. Mr. Subhash G. Barot, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4, submitted that the respondent No.4 is selected by regular selection process initiated by the respondent – University and is the selected candidate but, in view of the interim relief operating by the order of the Tribunal, the said post was vacant till the final order came to be passed on 12.01.2007 and the order of appointment is issued in favour of the respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner is not selected by the Selection Committee. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner is not selected by the Selection Committee. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner came to be appointed as part time Lecturer in the respondent no.2 – University on 09.02.1990. The said order is duly produced at page 22, Annexure- A. The Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 was in operation until 1995. Upon perusal of the order passed by the respondent – State which is duly produced at page 151, it emerges that the Government issued a Resolution in the year 1996 whereby, the said Resolution dated 29.12.1980 stood discontinued. 8.1 Upon issuance of an advertisement dated 13.05.1996 issued by the respondent – University for the post of Lecturer being Advertisement No.2/96 duly produced at page 156 to 159, the petitioner applied to the same and appeared in the selection process. In view thereof, the petitioner would be governed by the Government Resolution of 1996. Further, upon appearing in the interview, the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee. The aforesaid is also considered by the learned Tribunal while allowing the application filed by the respondent No.4 herein being Application No.12 of 1997 and rejecting the application of the petitioner being Application No.76 of 1996 vide order dated 12.01.2007 in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. It is apposite to reproduce the same: “6. It is the case of the Applicant of Application No.76/1996 that he is working there in the college as full time Lecturer w.e.f. 19-12-1989 and so, he is entitled to the appointment as full time Lecturer in the Respondent college. It is submitted by the Applicant that he has a right for appointment in the Respondent college and the College management has to consider the case of the Applicant as Applicant was also appointed as part time Lecturer after following due procedure of law and since he is working there in the Respondent college. It is alleged by Mr. D.R. Mehta against the Respondent management that they have tried to appoint their relative in the services of the Respondent college and that is the only reason inat Mr. Mehta is not selected by the Selection Committee though he was appearing before the Selection Committee. It is alleged by Mr. D.R. Mehta against the Respondent management that they have tried to appoint their relative in the services of the Respondent college and that is the only reason inat Mr. Mehta is not selected by the Selection Committee though he was appearing before the Selection Committee. It is the case of the Applicant that he is qualified to be appointed as full time Lecturer in the Respondent college as well as he is working there for a long time and that is the only reason that he is able to be appointed in the services of the Respondent college as full time Lecturer and the college does not have to select any other person except the Applicant of the Application No.76/1996 Mr. D.R. Mehta. It is also the case of the Applicant that he is entitled to be appointed, but, the Applicant was also aware with the procedure of appointment and that is only a reason, he appeared before the Selection Committee, but, by way of right, he can not be appointed there in the services of the Respondent college. But, unfortunately, he was not selected there and, therefore. he has chosen to file this application before this Tribunal for his protection. But, considering the facts on record, there is nothing in his favour that he was appointed as full time Lecturer in the services of the Respondent college or he was selected by the Selection Committee or he feels that by way of right he can be appointed in the services of the Respondent college as full time Lecturer as he was working as part time Lecturer even though he appeared before the Selection Committee. So, he was also considering that he must have to appear before the Selection Committee, otherwise, without appearing before the Selection Committee, he will not be selected and he would not be entitled to be appointed directly in the services of the Respondent college as full time Lecturer. This type of appointment can be called as back door entry that once a person is appointed as part time Lecturer, then he can be automatically absorbed whenever sufficient workload would be there the subject of said employee. This type of appointment can be called as back door entry that once a person is appointed as part time Lecturer, then he can be automatically absorbed whenever sufficient workload would be there the subject of said employee. But, as per the rules and regulations and circulars of the University and Government, no person can be directly appointed from part timer to full timer or there is no provision for promotion or any other things that once who is serving as part time Lecturer can be converted into the post of full time Lecturer without following due procedure only with right to be appointed there. 7. L.A. Mr. M.S. Joshi on behalf of Mr. D.R. Mehta has relied upon the judgment reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 584 regarding Service Law Seniority and Promotion -. I have gone through the said judgment, but it is not applicable in case of the Applicant as there is no question of seniority or promotion. Here, in the case of the Applicant, the Applicant Mr. D.R. Mehta, was working as part time Lecturer in the Respondent college and in between the workload was increased, so the college has published an advertisement and appointed one another person in the same subject of Mr. D.R. Mehta. So, there is no question of promotion, but the only question is regarding new appointment on new post considering the workload. So, this judgment is not applicable here in the case of Mr. D.R. Mehta. He has submitted one another judgment, which is a land mark judgment for part time Lecturers and it is reported in (2001) SCC 728, which was also for absorption of part time Lecturers. But it is also not applicable here in the case of the Applicant. In a number of matters, the Hon'ble High Court has decided that the candidate must have to face the interview for full time Lecturer even though he is serving as part time Lecturer in the same college in the same subject and then only, one can be selected and college can appoint the said person. 8. L.A., Mr. M.M. Desai on behalf of the Respondent college has canvassed his argument and drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards the judgment reported in (1990) 1 SCC, page 305 which is regarding Service Law - Appointment - Selection of employee. 8. L.A., Mr. M.M. Desai on behalf of the Respondent college has canvassed his argument and drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards the judgment reported in (1990) 1 SCC, page 305 which is regarding Service Law - Appointment - Selection of employee. It is also not directly applicable here in the case of the Applicant. But, the grounds are applicable in the case of the Applicant. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 (3) GLR page 2059 which is also regarding Service Law Absorption of employee, wherein the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel (Gujarat High Court) has held that part time employees have no right for absorption on full time permanent posts - To read such right would result into denial of equal opportunity to other eligible candidates. So, this judgment is directly applicable here in the case of the Applicant. One another judgment also relied upon by L.A., Mr. M.M. Desai is of this Tribunal in Application No.59/1995 decided on 14-2-2003, wherein facts were similar to the said case. It was decided by this Tribunal after hearing all the respective parties and considering all the judgments for the appointment of full time Lecturer and or adhoc employees, it was decided that who was appointed as full time Lecturer by the management after following due process of law is entitled to continue in the services of the Respondent college, while who was working there as part time Lecturer is not entitled to continue in the services of the college. One another matter decided for part time Lecturer is in the case of Kavitaben Mishra, wherein Hon'ble High Court has decided that if an employee is not appointed as full time Lecturer and working as part time Lecturer in the services of the Respondent college, then they must have to face the interview for full time Lecturer and by way of right and directly, they can not be appointed on the post of full time Lecturer.” 9. Considered the facts of the present case, the documents on record as also considered the impugned order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal wherein, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the aspects as referred above and held that the petitioner herein was not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of full – time Lecturer as per the advertisement. Having not been selected, the petitioner would not be entitled to be directly appointed in the service of the respondent – college as a full – time Lecturer. The said appointment would be a back door entry. As per the rules and regulations and circulars of the University and State Government, no person can be directly appointed from part- time Lecturer to full time Lecturer and that, there is no provision for promotion or any other things that once who is serving as a part time Lecturer can be converted into the post of full time Lecturer without following due procedure only with a right to be appointed there. 9.1 The aforesaid findings arrived at by the Tribunal, requires no interference. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.4 herein was selected by the Selection Committee and has been working with the respondent – University on the said post. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition. The present petition stands dismissed accordingly.