JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by respondent no.2, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Director Sanskrit Education to give approval to the select list dated 25.02.2012, annexure-4 to the writ petition, sent by Committee of Management on the recommendation given by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.11.2011, an advertisement was issued by respondent no.3 after seeking approval from the respondent no.4 for supplying vacancy on two posts of Assistant Lecturer Navya Vyakaran ¼uO; O;kdj.k½- Out of two posts, undisputedly, one post was meant for general category. The petitioner, undoubtedly, belongs to general category and he submitted his application for the said post. The selection process ensued and in that selection process, a short list was prepared as per the Rules and three candidates were short-listed. The name of the petitioner is at serial no.3 of the said merit list. The person at Serial No.2 i.e. Sunil Dutt Bijalwan has raised an objection of the placement of Beni Prasad Sharma at Serial No.1 with regard to the teaching experience certificate submitted by Beni Prasad Sharma which objection later on found to be true and, therefore, his name was struck out of the said merit list. The person at Serial No.2 i.e. Sunil Datt Bijalwan was appointed in the Institution, namely, Ved Mahayavidyalaya, Rishikesh, therefore, only the petitioner remained in the select list. The petitioner now wanted that select list to be given effect to give him appointment. 4. But, when this was done by the respondent-authorities, petitioner moved this Court by filing a WPSS No.618 of 2014 (Darveshwar Prasad Thapliyal vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority i.e. Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand to look into the matter and take appropriate decision regarding approval to the selection made in the Institution i.e. Sri Jagatdev Singh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Saptsarovar, Haridwar for the post in-question. Such decision was directed to be taken within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 20.09.2017. 5. Such decision was directed to be taken within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 20.09.2017. 5. The respondent no.2 has taken a decision vide order dated 22.12.2017 and the matter was disposed of on the ground that there was no post vacant in the Subject Navya Vyakaran at the time when it was advertised as the person who was holding the post was working as In-charge Principal of the Institution in-question and since there was no substantive vacancy on the post, therefore, an advertisement was wrongly issued and petitioner could be given appointment against the post which was not vacant. 6. It is against this order dated 22.12.2017, petitioner is before this Court. 7. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Navya Vyakaran was denied by respondent no.2 only for the reason that one Shri Kanta Prasad Badola who was working on the said post was given charge of officiating principal of the Institution, therefore, it was held by respondent no.2 that Shri Kanta Prasad Badola had his lien over the post and since the post was not substantively vacant when advertisement was issued, therefore, petitioner cannot be given appointment upon the said post on which Shri Kanta Prasad Badola has his lien. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed this factual position saying in the writ petition that when the advertisement was issued on 25.11.2011, the post was vacant, it is only after seeking approval from the respondent no.2, an advertisement was issued and the selection process was ensued in which he participated. 9. Learned State Counsel has filed its counter affidavit and in para 6 of the counter affidavit it is mainly contended that since the selection list was prepared by the Selection Committee on 25.05.2012, therefore, in view of the Government Order dated 03.07.2007, the life of the select list is only for one year, hence out of said select list, no appointment can be given on the basis of the select list which has already been expired. A reliance has been placed to the Government Order dated 03.07.2007, annexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit. 10. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been specifically pleaded in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit that the Government Order dated 03.07.2007 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. A reliance has been placed to the Government Order dated 03.07.2007, annexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit. 10. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been specifically pleaded in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit that the Government Order dated 03.07.2007 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and he has been denied appointment by respondent without any basis. The delay whatsoever has been occurred in the appointment of the petitioner is due to the inaction on the part of the respondents, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of appointment in the selection process held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2011. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment and a direction can very well be issued to the respondents to give effect to the select list after quashing the impugned order dated 22.12.2017. 12. Per contra, learned State Counsel has strenuously argued that the matter is stale; an advertisement was issued on 25.11.2011 and the select list was prepared only on 25.05.2012 which expired in view of the Government Order dated 03.07.2007. Thus, the select list which has already been expired in view of the Government Order dated 03.07.2007 cannot be given effect. He further submits that petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Lecturer, Navya Vyakaran in Joshimath, therefore, he cannot claim his appointment in the Institution. 13. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, only impediment which is there in giving appointment to the petitioner is the existence of the Government Order dated 03.07.2007, annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar issue with regard to the Sanskrit Bharti Vidhyalya, Haridwar, the writ petition was filed where 2013 advertisement regarding the selection on the post of Lecturer Sahitya was in-question. But, respondent-State has given appointment to the petitioner even after a period of one year of select-list as stated by the learned State Counsel. A reference is made to annexure-15 to the writ petition and paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 15. Having perused the record and appreciating the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-State cannot take two stands with regard to two different persons. A reference is made to annexure-15 to the writ petition and paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 15. Having perused the record and appreciating the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-State cannot take two stands with regard to two different persons. The stand of the State Government should be one and the same. In case of Sanskrit Bharti Vidhyalya, the State Government has ignored the fact of expiry of the period of one year of select list and has given the appointment, but in the case of petitioner, it has not been considered. This is something very strange and the two persons cannot be dealt with in a separate manner. 16. The selection process of the petitioner was conducted as per “Uttarakhand Sanskrit University Statutes, 2007” as amended in 2009 and 2011, where there is no life of select-list prescribed. The Institution is a Non-Government aided Sanskrit Degree College. The Government Order dated 03.07.2007 meant for government colleges will not apply in selection in the Non-Government aided colleges which are governed by its own set of Rules and Regulations. Moreover, it is a settled position of law that the government orders or executive directions cannot amend the Rules and Regulations which are framed by the State Government and subsequently, ratified by the Legislature. 17. So far as the appointment of the petitioner in Joshimath is concerned, it hardly makes a difference. The right of the petitioner cannot be denied for the reason that he has been working somewhere else. His rights are mature for the selection held in any Institution. 18. In this view of the matter, the upshot of the aforesaid discussion results into the fact that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.12.2017 is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Lecturer, Navya Vyakaran in the Institution run by respondent no.3 immediately within a period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.