LAWS(ALL)-1995-10-45

MAYA GOYAL Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY JHANSI

Decided On October 12, 1995
MAYA GOYAL Appellant
V/S
VICE CHANCELLOR BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY JHANSI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1984 has been filed by Km. Maya Goyal, who was appointed vide letter dated 8-10-1982 as a temporary lecturer in History in Pt. Jawahar Lai Nehru Maha Vidyalaya, Banda (hereinafter referred to as the college) with the approval of the Vice-Chancel lor of Bundelkhand University. Vide letter dated 2-4-1984 her set vice was terminated by the President of the Committee of Management of the college. Being aggrieved, she has filed the above writ petition. At the time when this writ petition was entertained by this Court en 27-5-1984, interim order was granted, staying the operation of the order of termination of service dated 2-4-1981. This order was, however, vacated on 3- 1-1985 with the observation that if any appointment is made on the post on which the peti tioner is claiming a right, that appointment sha11 be subject to the result of this writ petition.

(2.) THEREFORE the Management appointed Dr. A. K. Mishra by appoint ment letter dated 3-10-1985 on ad hoc basis for six months or till the candidate recommended by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) joins the post or till the passing of the order by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1984 (Km. Maya Goyal v. Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, whichever is earlier, On 24-9-1984 his appointment was continued till 30-6-1987 with the same condi tions about the term. By letter dated 26-5-1987 the service of Dr. A. K. Mishra has been terminated after 30-6-1987. Being aggrieved by it Dr. Mishra has filed Writ Petition No. 21758 of 1987. In this writ petition also an interim order was passed to the effect that if any appointment is made against the post held by Dr. Mishra that will be subject to any order, which may be passed subsequently in this writ petition.

(3.) EACH of the writ petitions and the application for recall mentioned above are being decided as under :- Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1994 Km. Maya Goyal v. Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University and others: 6 By letter dated 10-3-1981 the Chancellor o: the University granted provisional affiliation to the college for M. A. in History subject to certain conditions, one of which relating to the payment of salary to the teachers u reproduced below : "the Management of the College will bear the expenses on the aca demic posts till they are created/sanctioned by the Director of Higher Education, U. P. " The college accordingly invited applications by a notice published in a news paper for appointment to various posts including two temporary posts of lecturers in History (likely to be made permanent ). In pursuance of the above notice various persons including the petitioner, and respondent No. 4 applied. Petitioner was issued an interview letter dated 28-8-1982 in which it was mentioned that "this appointment will be temporary against leave vacancy at present and its continuance shall be subject to the approval of the U. P. Higher Education Commission. " The Selection Committee selected both, the petitioner and respondent No. 4, placing respondent No. 4 at serial No. 1 and the petitioner at serial No. 2. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University to which the college is affiliated for the period till a candidate duly selected by the Commission joins the post. Petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 8-10-1982 in which it was mentioned that her appointment has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor for he period till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. This appointment letter also contains the following four conditions: (i) you will be paid the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 plus dearness allowance approved by the Government; (ii) as you do not have M, Phil, or equivalent Degree, if you are not able to obtain such a Degree within five years, by our annual increment will be stopped ; (iii) if your post is not approved by the Director Higher Education, U. P. , Your salary will be paid from general maintenance fund and your period can be extended only on approval by the Director; and (iv) your service can be terminated by giving one month's notice and you can also resign by giving a similar notice. 7. Petitioner joined the service as temporary/ad hoc lecturer in pursu ance of the above appointment letter. The Director of Higher Education U. P. sanctioned a post in the History Department of the college in 1983 against which respondent No. 4, who was placed at serial No. 1 by the Selection Committee, was absorbed. The second post of lecturer in the His tory Department was sanctioned by the Director on 14- 2-1984. The Director, however, by his letter dated 23-3-1984 informed the college that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under Section 31 (3) (b) of the State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the University Act) and after 3-1-1984 no ad hoc appointment of a teacher could be made. The Management thereafter by impugned order dated 13-3-1984 terminated the service of the petitioner. On her representation the President of the Managing Committee of the college passed an order dated 2- 4-1984 terminating her service with effect from 1-6-1984, Being aggrieved by it the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 8. The terms of the notice inviting the applications, interview and the appointment letters issued to the petitioner and the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving the appointment of the petitioner are different. According to the notice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) applications were invited for appointment to two temporary posts in History Department of the College. Although the period for which the appointment was to be made was not speci fied but it was mentioned in the said notice that those two temporary posts are likely to be made permanent. In the interview letter (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) it was stated that the appointment will be temporary against leave vacancy at present and its continuance shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. The order of the Vice-Chancellor, however, mentions that the petitioner's appointment has been approved for the period till the candidate selected by the Commission joins. But the appointment letter after referring to the letter of the Vice-chancellor approving the petitioner's appointment for the period till the candidate selected by the Commission joins, contains four conditions, one of which is that her service will be termi nated at any time by one month's notice. The other condition was that if the post is not approved by the Director, the salary would be paid to her from general maintenance fund. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the terms of the advertisement and the order of the Vice-Chancellor petitioner is entitled to continue in service on ad hoc basis till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. The respondents, however, rely upon one of the conditions contained in the appointment letter whereunder her service can be terminated by one month's notice. 9. Section 31 of the Universities Act provides for appointment of tea chers of the University an affiliated or associate colleges. According to this section teachers of and affiliated or associate colleges are to be appointed by the College Management on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted in the manner provided therein. Sub-section (3) (a) of the said section authorises the Management of the college to make officiating appoint ment in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding ten months. Sub-section (3) (b) permits under certain conditions the appointment of a temporary/officiating teacher in a substantive capacity. The position, however, has been changed by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act), Section 12 (1) of which has provided that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Universities Act or in the Statute made thereunder, every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the Manage ment only on the recommendation of the Commission except the appointments made under Sections 16, 31-A and 31-B of the Commission Act, which can be made by the Management of the College without any recommendation of the Commission. Section 16 provides for appointment of ad hoc teacher where the vacancy has been notified by the Management to the Commission and the Commission has failed to recommend the name of suitable candidate within three months from the date of such notification. Sub-section (2) of Section 16, which has laid down the period of such ad hoc appointment, is reproduced below : "16. (2) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease with effect from the earlier of the following dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post; (b) where the period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 12 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. Section 31-A empowers the State Government to issue Removal of Difficulties Order for the purpose of removing any difficulty in the implemeuattion of the Act for such period as may be specified in the order itself. As per proviso appended to sub-section (1) of this section, no order shall be made there under after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of the Act. Under Section 31-A the State Government has issued on ,4-1-1982 the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982. This order was operative for a period of one year commencing from the date of its issue. The Government issued another Removal of Difficulties Order in 1983 for a period of another year with effect from 4-1-1983. Under these orders ad hoc appointment could be made by the Management of the College without consultation with the Commission against a newly created post also and such appointment, according to paragraph 3 of the Order, will cease on the date when the Commission recommends a candidate for appoint ment. Paragraph 3 of the said Order is reproduced below : ' (3) Manner and duration of Appointment.-Every appointment of teacher under paragraph 2 shall be made in consultation with an expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and shall cease on the date when the Higher Education Service Commission recommends a candidate for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980" Section 31-B provides for regularisation of certain ad hoe appointment made on or before 3-1-1984 under Removal of Difficulties order. 10. Petitioner was selected a temporary/ad hoc lecturer by a duly constituted Selection Committee and her appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor in pursuance whereof she was issued appointment letter dated 8-10-1982. This appointment letter does not specify the provisions under which she was appointed. But after 21-8-1981 on which date the Commission Act was enforced, no appointment could have been made under the Universities Act in view of the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the former Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Commission Act has, however, laid down that if any vacancy, in respect of which an appointment of a teacher has been made, was advertised before the commencement of that Act, the provision of the said Act shall not apply to such appointment. Although the petitioner has filed the notice inviting applications, in pursuance of which she was appointed, as Annexure 1 to the writ petition ; but it does not bear any date. Its date has also neither been given in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Even respon dents have not given its date in the counter-affidavit. Petitioner's ad hoc I temporary appointment dated 8-10-1982 is referrable to the Commission Act only. Ad hoc appointment under Section 16 of the Commission Act could not have been made, because the post was temporary and till her appointment no vacancy notified to the Commission. Only other provision under which the petitioner could have been appointed was Removal of Difficulties Order notified under Section 31-A of the Commission Act. This is also clear from paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit of Dr. Gorakhnath Dwivedi, who at the relevant time was the Principal of the college, in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment under the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment under the Commission Act. Any appointment made under that Order has to last till the candidate is selected by the Commission for regular appointment. It is for this reason that the Vice-Chancellor approved the petitioner's appointment for the period till a candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. A Division Bench of this Court in K. N. Mishra v. Principal, S. M. College, Chandausi. District Moradabad, 1988 UPLBEC 310, held that an ad hoc appointment under the Removal of Difficulties Order came to end in the manner provided by the Order itself and it does not leave any option with the Management to insert any condition providing for termination before the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. Such a condition being in conflict with paragraph 3 of Removal of Difficulties Order has to be ignored and is liable to be struck down. The relevant passage from the said judgment is reproduced below ; "an ad hoc appointment under Removal of Difficulties Order comes to an end in the manner provided by the Order itself. It does not leave any option with management to insert any condition that the appointment shall come to an end after six months. Clause (2) in the appointment Order being in conflict with clause (3) extract ed above has to be struck down. It was liable to be ignored. The petitioner on his appointment acquired right to continue till a regular selected candidate from the Commission joined. It being a statutory right could not be curtailed by the management. " The condition in the appointment letter of the petitioner providing for termination of service before a regular candidate is selected by the Commission being in conflict with paragraph 3 of the Removal of Difficulties Order has to be ignored, being without jurisdiction. 11. In this connection, it may also be mentioned that as regards cases where ad hoc appointments are made under Section 16 (1) of the Commission Act regarding which sub-section (2) of Section 16 has provided that such ad hoc appointment shall cease with effect from earliest of the following dates, namely, when the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post on 30th June following the date of ad hoc appointment, the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. Committee of Management K. C. M. College, Moradabad, 1988 UPLBEC 492, has held that such ad hoc appointment shall continue till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. Relevant extract from this Court's judgment in the above case is reproduced below : "this Court in the case of Shiv Chandra Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 UPLBEC 248, had an occasion to consi der the provisions of Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 which are para materia with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. This Court has taken the view that a person appointed on ad hoc basis under Section 18 shall continue till a proper selection is made by the Commission. The position, therefore, is that the petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis in the aforementioned college will continue to subsist till a selection is made by the Commission and the person so selected joins the college. In view of the legal position stated above, the petitioner would be entitled to salary from month to month till a selection is made by the Commission and the person so selected joins the post. " In another case Pankaj Krishna v. Vice-Chancellor, Kanpur University 1988 UPLBEC 484, the Division Bench followed the same principle and in this connection has laid down as under : "in view of the decisions of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 18 of the Secondary Education Service Commission Act, the provisions whereof are analogous to those contained in Sec tion 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980, the following position has emerged :- (1) The petitioner is entitled to be treated as a lecturer in Chemistry in the institution concerned and to be paid on that post till some one else is recommended for appointment on the post held by the petitioner by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission and the recommended of the Commission had joined the post held by the petitioner. (2) The service of the petitioner has not been terminated in accordance with law. " That apart, it is not open to the Management to replace one ad hoc or temporary teacher by another ad hoc or temporary teacher. An ad hoc or temporary teacher can be replaced only by a candidate selected by the Commission. Reference, in this connection, may be made to State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : "secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee ; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. " The Management of the college was, therefore, not justified to terminate the petitioner's service and to appoint another person on ad hoc basis in her place. 12. There was also no justification on the part of the State in not paying the salary to the petitioner on the ground that she is neither entitled to the benefit of Section 31 (3) (b) of the Universities Act nor is it permissible to make any ad hoc appointment after 4-1-1984. Even if she is not entitled to benefit of permanent appointment under Section 31 (3),b) of the Univer sities Act, her service cannot be terminated nor can be denied the payment of salary, because she is entitled to continue till a candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. It is true that the Removal of Difficulties Order came to an end on 4-1-1984 and thereafter no ad hoc appointment could have been made thereunder ; but the lapse of the said order can neither have the effect of nor can be a ground for terminating her service and not paying her salary. If the right of enduring character has ber been created and vested in a person by a statute, it cannot be taken away even if that statute has lapsed. In this connection reference may be made to the case of State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Base, AIR 1962 SC 945, wherein it was laid down as under ; "in our opinion, what the effect of the expiration of a temporary Act would be must depend upon the nature of the right or obligation resulting from the provisions of the temporary Act and upon their character the said right and liability are enduring or not. As observed by Parker, J. in the case of Steavenson v. Oliver, (1841) 151 ER 1024 at pp 1026-1027. There is a difference between temporary statute and statutes which are repealed ; the latter (except so tar as they relate to transactions already completed under them) became as if they had never existed ; but with respect to the former, the extent of the restrictions imposed and the duration of the provisions, are matter of construction. '' In this connection, it would be useful and interesting to consider the decision in the case of Steavension, (1841) 151 BR 1024 at pp. 1026-1027 itself. That case related to 6th Geo. 4, c 133, Section 4 which provided that every person who held a commis sion or warrant as surgeon or assistant-surgeon in His Majesty's navy or army, should be entitled to practise as an apothecary without having passed the usual examination. The statute itself was temporary and it expired on August 1, 1826. It was urged that a person who was entitled to practise as an apothecary under the Act would lose his right after August 1, 1826 because there was no saving provision in the statute and its expiration would bring to an end all the rights and liabilities created by it. The Court rejected this contention and held that the person who had acquired a right to practise as an apothecary, without having passed the usual examination, by virtue of the provision of the temporary Act, would not be deprived of his right after its expiration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the right created by the statute is of an enduring character and has vested in the person, that right cannot be taken away because the statute by which it was created has expired. " Same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A. P. , A. IR 1985 SC 724. The aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court while considering the effect of expiry of temporary statute (Ordinance) on the vested right of the persons even though Section 6 of General Clauses was held not to be applicable to such cases. These principles will also be applicable to the case of lapse of Removal of Difficulties Older, which is one of the forms of subordinate legislation provided the right of enduring nature has vested in a person. By appointment orders under Removal of Difficulties Order the right was created in favour of the peti tioner to continue in service till the person duly selected by the Commission joins the post. Such a person has also been given right to be appointed on substantive basis under Section 31-B of the Commission Act. Such a right is right of enduring nature and such an appointment will continue even after the lapse of Removal of Difficulties Order under which it was passed. 13. In fact the scheme of the Commission Act is that ad hoc appoint ments already made under the Removal of Difficulties Order will continue till the candidate selected by the Commission joins unless such an appoint ment has been regularised under Section 31-B, which was inserted in the aforesaid Act by U. P. Act No. 22 of 1985. Sub-section (2-A) was further inserted in Section 31-B by U. P. Act No, 2 of 1992, which has provided for reqularisation of ad hoc teachers appointed in vacancies referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) of sub-para (1) of paragraph 2 of Removal of Difficulties Orders. 1982 and 1983. If the Legislature wanted to termi nate the service of ad hoc teachers after the expiry of Removal of Difficulties Order, it would not have made provisions of their regularisation under sub-sections (1) and (2j- (a) of Section 31-B. The intention of the Legislature to continue the service of such ad hoc appointees after the lapse of the Removal of Difficulties Orders are thus clear. Section 31-C, which provides for regularisation of ad hoc teachers appointed under Section 16 of the Commission Act, has provided in its sub-section (4) that if service of such a teacher is not regularised and he does not get substantive appointment under sub-section (1), he shall cease to hold ad hoc appointment after June 30, 1992. There is no such provision in Section 31-B. There was thus, no justification to terminate the petitioner's service. 14. For the reasons given above the petitioner was entitled to continue as ad hoc lecturer in the college till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post. It was, therefore, not open to the Management of the college to terminate the petitioner's service by the impugned order because no candidate has been selected by the Commission. Hence this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Writ Petition No. 21758 of 1987-Dr. A. K. Mishra v. U. P. Higher Educa tion Service Commission i 15. After termination the service of Km. Maya Goyal the Management of the college invited applications for appointment of temporary lecturer in History Department vide notice (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) for a period of six months or till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post, whichever is earlier. Dr. Mishra was selected by the Selection Committee and he was appointed vide appointment letter dated 30-10-1985 for a period of six months or till the candidate selected by the Commission joins the post or till passing of the order by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1984-Km. Maya Goyal v. Vice-chancellor, Bundelkhand Univer sity, whichever is earlier. This appointment was continued by order dated 2-4-1986 upto 30-6 1987 with the same three alternative conditions about the period of its operation. The Principal of the college vide letter dated 26-5-1987 informed Dr. Misra that his appointment will come to an end on 30-6-1987. Dr. Mishra filed this writ petition, challenging the order of termination of his service as well as the notice dated 6-11-1987 inviting fresh applications for appointment of ad hoc lecturer in History Department of the college. As in the meantime Sri Lavkusah Prasad Dwivedi has been appointed as ad hoc lecturer in the college on the same post, which was held by Dr. Mishra earlier, his appointment was also challenged and he was impleaded as one of the respondents. 16. As the appointment of Dr. Mishra was made subject to the result of the writ petition filed by Km. Maya Goyal and as Km. Maya Goyal's writ petition is being allowed, no effective relief can be given to him and the writ petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 12435 of 1988- Lwkush Prasad Dwivedi v. Bundelkhand University : ANd Writ Petition No. 25151 of 1988- Lavkush Prasad Dwivtdi v. Bundelkhand University : 17. Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi was appointed as a temporary lecturer on ad hoc basis upto 30-6-1988 or till the candidate selected by the Commis sion joins, whichever is earlier subject to the order passed in the writ petition filed by Km. Maya Goyal. By letter dated 30-6-1988 his service was terminat ed on the ground that the period for which he was appointed has come to an end. Being aggrieved by it he has filed writ petition No. 12436 of 1938. Sri Dwivedi filed another writ petition No. 25151 of 1988 against the second order dated 13-9-1988, terminating his service. 18 By interim order passed by this Court on 3-1-1985 in writ petition No. 7282 of 1984-Km. Maya Goyal v Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univer sity, (supra) any appointment made after the termination of her service was to be subject to the order, which may be passed in that writ petition. Mr. Dwivedi's appointment was also made subject to the order, which may be passed in the writ petition filed by Km. Maya Goyal and as we are allowing the writ petition of Km. Maya Goyal no relief can be given to Sri Lavkush Passed Dwivedi in any of these two writ petitions. W. P. No. 31067 of 1992-Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi v. Director of Education (Higher Education), U. P. 19. This writ petition was filed by Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi against the order, dated 23-6-1992 rejecting his claim for regularisation of his service. The writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. on 16-7-1992 and direction was issued to the respondents therein to regularise his service. Dr. A K. Misbra has filed an application in this writ petition for recall of the judg ment dated 16-7-1992, passed by Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. As Hon'ble M. P, Singh, J. has been transferred to an other High Court, this application has also come up before us. 20. From the perusal of this writ petition, it appears that Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi has concealed relevant facts from this Court. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below, it has been stated that at no point of time any objection has been raised against the validity of his appointment made in 1987 : " (18) That at no point of time any objection whatsoever had been raised with regard to the validity of the appointment of the peti tioner made in the year 1987 and regular payment of salary is being made to the petitioner from the Government funds by the education department itself without any objection whatsoever till date. " The above statement is incorrect, Dr. A. K. Mishra has challenged the appoint ment of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi in his writ petition No. 21758 of 1987 in which Sri Dwivedi is one of the respondents. That apart, Dr. Mishra has made an application in his Writ Petition No. 21758 of 1987 for direction against the regularisation of (service of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi. This application was rejected by learned single Judge with the observation that Dr. Mishra's interest is fully protected by interim order, dated 26-11- 1987, whereby it has been directed that any appointment made on the post held by Dr. Mishra will be subject to the result of his writ petition. 21. No order regularising the service of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi could have been passed without first setting aside the orders terminating his service against which he has filed two writ petitions referred to above. That apart, the appointment of Sri Dwivedi was subject to the order, which may be passed in writ petition No. 7282 of 1984, filed by Km. Maya Goyal. There fore, all these writ petitions including the writ petition, filed by Sri Dwivedi for regularisation of his service should have been heard and disposed of toge ther. In any case Dr. A. K. Mishra, who has challenged the appointment of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi in his writ petition, was entitled to be heard before passing any order of regularisation of set vice of Sri Dwivedi, but no such opportunity was given to him. It appears that Dr. Mishra was not even impleaded as a party in the writ petition filed by Sri Dwivedi. The judgment of Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. dated 16-7-1992 is, as such recalled. 22. As the appointment of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi was subject to the order, which may be passed in the writ petition filed by Km Maya Goyal and as her writ petition is being allowed, no direction can be issued for regularising the service of Sri Dwivedi. 23. The contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi, however, is that W. P. No. 7282 of 1984-Km. Maya Goyal v. Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, W. P. No. 21758 of 1987-Dr. A. K. Mishra v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission have become infructuous, because of the amendment effected in the Commission Act from 22-11-1991 on account of which none of the above two petitioners can be re instated in service for the reasons that Section 16 providing for ad hoc ap pointment has been deleted and no ad hoc appointment can be made or continued after 22-11-1991 in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 31-C of the Commission Act. Relevant part of Section 31-C is reproduced below : "31-C. Regularisation of other ad hoc appointments.- (1) Any teacher, other than a principal who- (a) was appointed on ad hoc basis after January 3,1984 but not later than June 30, 1991 on a post- (i) which after its due creation was never filled earlier ; or (ii) which after its due creation was filled earlier and after its falling vacant, permission to fill it was obtained from the Director; or (iii) which came into being in pursuance of the terms of new affiliation or recognition granted to the college and has been continuously serving the college from the date of such ad hoc appointment upto the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commis sion (Amendment) Act, 1992 ; (b) was so appointed after three months of the notification to the Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 16 as it stood before its omission by the Act referred to in clause (a), or if appointed within such period, no recommendation was made by the Commission within such period ; (c) possessed on the date of such commencement, the qualifica tions required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant statutes in force on the date of such ad hoc appointment ; (d) is not related to any member of the management or the prin cipal, of the college concerned in the manner mentioned in the explanation to Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh State Uni versities Act, 1973 ; (e) has been found suitable for regular appointment by a Selec tion Committee constituted under sub- section (2); may be given substantive appointment by the management of the college, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (a ). (4) A teacher appointed on ad Hoc basis referred to in sub-section (1) who does not get a substantive appointment under that sub-sec tion and a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall cease to hold the ad hoc appointment after (June 30, 1992 ). " Section 31-C provides for regularisation of service of the ad hoc appointees under Section 16 of the Commission Act, if they fulfil the conditions laid down therein. Sub-section (4) of the same Section has further laid down that if an ad hoc appointee does not get substantive appointment under sub-section (1), he shall cease to hold ad hoc appointment after 30-6-1992. But this section is not applicable to these teachers, who were appoint ed before 3-1-1984 under Removal of Difficulties Order. Section 31-B provides for regularisation of the service of such teachers, who have been appointed before 3-1-1984 ; but there is such provision under this section, which provides for automatic termination of service of such teachers if their service is not regularised under the said section. Therefore, Km. Maya Goyal, who has filed Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1984 cannot get regularisation of her service under Section 31-C, because it is applicable only to such teachers, who are appointed after 3-1-1984, whereas she was appointed on 8-10-1982. Her case for regularisation of service is liable to be considered under Section 31-B of the Commission Act. The appropriate authority will, therefore, consider her case for regularisation of her service under Section 31-B in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 24. Normally if an order of termination of service of an employee is set aside by the Court, he/she is entitled to be reinstated with full back salary and other consequential benefits unless he/she was gainfully employed some where else after the termination of service. Km. Maya Goyal filed the writ petition in 1984. There is nothing on the record to indicate that she was employed after termination of her service elsewhere. She is, therefore, entitled to be reinstated with full salary and other consequential benefits, subject to the condition that she files her own affidavit before the Principal of the college mentioning therein that she has not been gainfully employed any where after the termination of her service by the impugned order. 25. Writ Petition No. 7282 of 1984-Km. Maya Goyal v. Vice-Chancel lor, Bundelkhand University, is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 2-4-1984 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate her forth with with full salary and other consequential benefits from the date from which she was made to cease to work as lecturer in the college till the date of her reinstatement in pursuance of this judgment, subject to the condition that she files her own affidavit before the Principal of the college mentioning therein that she has not been gainfully employed anywhere after termination of her service by the impugned order and/or if employed was getting salary less than the salary of a lecturer in History Department in the college. If she files an affidavit of employment elsewhere after the impugned order was passed getting salary less than that of the lecturer in History Department of the college, she will be paid the balance. The payment of the back salary shall be made to her within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this judgment. In case no such affidavit is filed by her, she will only be reinstated without back salary. The appropriate authority will also con sider her case for regularisatioa of service under Section 31-B of the Commis sion Act as expeditiously as possible. If Km. Maya Goyal joins the service in pursuance of this judgment and her service is not regularised under Sec tion 31-B respondents will take immediate steps for making permanent/regular appointment of a lecturer in the History Department of the college. 26. In case Km. Maya Goyal declines to join the college in pursuance of this judgment, respondents shall consider the case of Dr. A. K. Mishra, who has filed Writ Petition No. 21758 of 1987, for regularisation of his service under Section 31-C of the Commission Act in accordance with law at the earliest. If Dr. Mishra does not get regularisation/substantive appoint ment under Section 31-C of the Commission Act, the case of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwiyedi will be considered for regularisation/substantive appointment under the said section, In case service of Sri Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi is also not regularised and he does not get substantive appointment under Section 31-C of the Commission Act, respondents will take immediate step for making regular/permanent appointment of lecturer in history Department of the college. 27. Writ Petitions Nos. 21758 of 1987-Dr. A. K. Mishra v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, 12435 of 1988-Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi v. Bundelkhand University, 25151 of 1988-Lavkush Prasad Dwivedi v. Bundelkhand University and 31067 of 1992-Lavkush Prasad Dwivadi v. Director of Education (Higher Education), U. P. . are disposed of with the observations made above. Petitions disposed of. .