Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 4251-4252 of 2018
1.Leave granted.
2.The appellants question the judgment and orders passed by the MUKESH KUMAR 20.11.2015 in Writ Appeal No.442 of 2014 arising from Original Petition No.3818 of 2003 and (ii) dated 20.09.2017 in Review Petition No.151 of 2016 in Writ Appeal No.442 of 2014.
3.According to the appellants, they were appointed against substantive posts created by the Resolution of the Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University (‘the University’, for short) at AICTE1 scales of pay, through selection processes which were in complete compliance of the provisions of the concerned University Statutes; and, on completion of one year of service, the University declared the appellants to have satisfactorily completed their probation. But the University refused to implement pay revision to the teachers so appointed including the appellants describing them as appointed temporarily. This led to the filing of O.P. No.3818 of 2003 which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench in appeal preferred by the University however set aside the decision of the Single Judge and later, dismissed Review Petitions as well, leading to the filing of these appeals by special leave.
4.The facts in brief are as under: 1All India Council for Technical Education A. After having secured conditional approval from the AICTE on 31.05.1996, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting dated 06.07.1996 resolved to start B.Tech courses in certain disciplines. It was further resolved to create posts of teachers at various levels in said disciplines. At the same time, teachers for some of the subjects namely Geometrical drawing, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Humanities were to be engaged on contract/parttime basis. The relevant portion of the Resolution was as under: “Further resolved to create the following posts at AICTE scales of pay with AICTE qualifications, to be filled up through advertisement. Sl. Post Number Scale of No. Pay (in Rs.) 1. Professor with specialization in 1 4500-any one of the following 7300/-branches: (Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Electronics & Polymer Engineering & 2. Professor 3 4500-(One each in Electronics & 7300/-Polymer Engineering & 3. Lecturers 6 2200-(Two each in Electronics & 4000/-Polymer Engineering, 4. Lecturer in Mathematics 1 2200-4000/-
5.Workshop Foreman 1 1640-2900/-
6.Trade Instructors 5 975-(One each in Foundry, Fitting, 1660/-Carpentry, Sheet metal, Machine shop)
7.Tradesman 5 825-
1250/-
Teachers in the following allied subjects shall be engaged on
contract/part-time basis.
1. Geometrical drawing
2. Physics
3. Chemistry
4. Mathematics
5. Humanities.”
B. Accordingly, an order was issued by the University on 10.07.1996
creating posts in terms of said Resolution. The order also dealt with teachers
to be appointed on contract/part-time basis in relation to 5 subjects mentioned
hereinabove. A Notification was issued on 15.07.1996 inviting applications in
prescribed form from qualified candidates inter alia for the posts of teachers
under the School of Technology and Applied Sciences in the University. It
mentioned that the qualifications for the posts would be same as for similar
posts in the Government Aided Engineering Colleges and communal
reservations as prescribed in the Statutes would be observed while filling up
the posts. Thereafter sanction was accorded by the Vice Chancellor on
03.09.1996 for constituting various screening/scrutinizing committees for
selection to the posts of Professors and Lecturers.
C. On 25.08.1997 an Order was passed by the University which referred to
the Resolution passed in the meeting of the Syndicate of the University held
on 05.08.1997 about creation of Teaching and Non-Teaching (Technical)
Posts for the University College of Engineering, Thodupuzha as under:
“O R D E R
The Director, School of Technology and Applied
Sciences has reported the requirement of teaching and
technical staff in view of the commencement of Second
batch of B. Tech Courses in the University College of
Engineering. The Principal, University College of
Engineering has put forth the proposal for creating
Teaching & Technical posts as per the AICTE norms
and workload for B. Tech. in Computer Science/
Electronics/Polymer Technology courses.
The Syndicate at its meeting held on 05.08.1997
has resolved to create the following teaching and non-
teaching (technical) posts for the University College of
Engineering, Thodupuzha:
S. Name of Post No. of Scale of
No. Posts Pay
1 Lecturers in Electronics 4 Rs.2200-
& Communication 4000
2. Lecturers in Computer 2 Rs.2200-
Science & Engineering 4000
3. Lecturers in Polymer 2 Rs.2200-
4. Lecturers in Mechanical 2 Rs.2200-
5. Lecturer in Mathematics 1 Rs.2200-
6. Lecturer in Chemical 1 Rs.2200-
S.No. Name of Post No. of Scale of
Non-teaching posts Posts Pay
1 Workshop Instructor 1 Rs.1400-
Gr.II 2300
Electronics &
Communication
2. Workshop Instructor 1 Rs.1400-
Gr.II 2300
3. Lab Instructor Gr.II 1 Rs.1400-
Polymer Engineering 2300
4. Workshop Instructor 1 Rs.1400-
Gr.II 2300
Mechanical
5. Lab 1 Rs.825-
Assistant/Tradesman 1250
Chemical Engineering
The expenditure for all the above posts shall be
met from the self generated funds of the University
College of Engineering, Thodupuzha under the School
of Technology and Applied Sciences.
The above teaching positions are inter-transferable
among the three centres and the University College of
Engineering, Thodupuzha depending upon the
requirements fixed by the University.
Orders are issued accordingly.”
D. Some of the appellants were appointed as Lecturers pursuant to the
selection undertaken in terms of the Notification dated 15.07.1996, while
some were selected against the additional posts created in terms of the
Resolution dated 05.08.1997. By way of illustration, relevant portion of
Order dated 17.12.1997 passed by the University in case of appellant no.1
was as under:-
“O R D E R
Sanction has been accorded to the following
appointment in the University College of Engineering,
Thodupuzha.
Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakeem
Manzilul Karam
Thalandu P.O.
Erattupetta – 686 580
Being appointed as Lecturer in Electronics and
Communication Engineering in the Scale of pay of
Rs.2200-4000/- w.e.f. 26.11.97 FN against one of the
posts of lecturers created vide U.O. read above.
The above appointment is governed by the
provisions in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statues
1991.
Orders are issued accordingly.”
E. On 10.03.1998, the University issued another Notification inviting
applications for appointment of Teaching/Technical posts under the School of
Technology and Applied Sciences in the University. The posts were stated to
be transferable among four units of School of Technology and Applied
Sciences viz. University College of Engineering, Thodupuzha, Regional
Centres of School of Technology and Applied Sciences at Edappally,
Mannanam and Pathanamthitta. The posts were of Lecturers in Mechanical
Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Computer Science. In addition,
applications were also invited for three posts of Lecturers in Mathematics
which posts were on temporary basis for a period of three years but were
likely to be made permanent. Again, a Screening Committee was appointed,
after due sanction from the Vice Chancellor of the University, to short-list the
applications received for the posts of Lecturers. The appellants 2 and 4 were
selected in the selection process so undertaken as Lecturers in Computer
Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering respectively.
Thereafter, orders were issued by the University on 16.06.1999 in respect of
appellants 1 and 5 that they had satisfactorily completed probation as
Lecturers in University College of Engineering.
F. On 04.08.1999 under an Order issued by the University, benefits of the
Kerala Government Pay Revision, 1997 for non-teaching (Technical) staff
were extended to those who were appointed along with the appellants. On
18.05.2000 Government of Kerala issued an Order implementing revised
scales of pay for Teachers in Engineering Colleges in the State w.e.f.
01.01.1996 in accordance with the scheme recommended by the AICTE and
approved by the Government of India. An Order was thereafter issued by the
University on 23.03.2001 for implementing the UGC/AICTE pay revision to
the Teachers including the Teachers of University College of Engineering.
However, instead of making these pay revisions effective from 01.01.1996,
the effect was given from 01.01.2001. This Order further described the
Teachers of University College of Engineering as “Temporarily appointed for
a period of 3 or more years”.
G. Soon thereafter, the Principal of the University College of Engineering
informed the Registrar of the University on 18.04.2001 that the Teachers
appointed in the College were not temporary and their appointments were
governed by the provisions of the statutes of the University. The relevant
portion of the letter was as under:
“As per G.O. cited above as ref.(2) revised AICTE
scales are implemented for the teachers of Engineering
Colleges in the state with effect from 1.1.1996. In the
U.O. cited above as ref (1) it is stated that AICTE pay
revision is implemented for the teachers of University
College of Engineering, Thodupuzha who are
appointed temporarily for a period of three or more
years, with effect from 01.01.2001.
It may be noted that the teachers in the college are
not temporary and it is stated in their appointment
order that their appointment in the University is
governed by the provisions in the 1991/1997 statutes of
Mahatma Gandhi University. Hence revised AICTE
scales of pay cannot be implemented in UCET based
the U.O. cited above. It is therefore requested to
consider the representation of teachers favourably and
issue necessary orders at the earliest.”
H) The appellants represented to the Vice Chancellor of the University on
01.06.2001 followed by another representation on 06.05.2002 that they were
regular teachers of the University and were entitled to AICTE pay revisions
w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The appellants thereafter filed a Petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India being O.P. (C)No.3818 of 2003 praying inter alia
for quashing of the Order dated 23.03.2001 and Resolutions passed in the
meeting of the Syndicate of the University insofar as the appellants were
treated as having been appointed temporarily.
I) While contesting the petition, the University filed four affidavits in reply
at different stages. The stand taken by the University was that the University
College of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences
was a Self Financing Institution; for Self Financing Institution no grant was
received from the Government/All India Council; the income generated from
the Self Financing Institutions alone was utilized for infrastructure and
remuneration of the teaching and non-teaching staff; that there were 20
departments listed under the Statutes of the University and that Self Financing
Institutions were not part of that. It was further asserted that no service
conditions for teaching staff of Self Financing Institutions were formulated by
the Syndicate of the University and that the Statutes were applicable only in
respect of teachers of the University and not to the teachers of Self Financing
Institutions. In the affidavit filed in January 2007, it was asserted in
paragraph 19 as under:-
“19. The definition clause “teachers of the University”
contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985
only means teachers of departments maintained by the
University under Chapter 42 of the Mahatma Gandhi
University Statutes 1997. It cannot be interpreted to
mean as a teacher of Self-Financing Institution. These
institutions are not included in the Statute. It is
pertinent to note that at the faming of Act, the Self
Financing Institutions were not started by the
Government of Kerala and Universities. The State
Legislature has amended the Act 1985 (Vide Act 9 of
1995) and certain provisions were included in the case
of unaided Colleges.”
In its affidavit filed in November, 2011, the University asserted that
on 05.08.1997 a meeting of the Statutory Finance Committee of the
University was held. In this meeting, while approving Budget estimates an
additional item was also considered, which was regarding creation of
teaching/non-teaching posts in University College of Engineering,
Thodupuzha. In said meeting, the recommendation was to create said posts
for a period of three years. However, the Resolution was not referred to in the
Order dated 25.08.1997 passed by the University and what was referred to
was the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed on 05.08.1997.
J) In affidavit in reply by State of Kerala, it was submitted that the
Government order issued in respect of pay revision was not applicable to
teachers by Self Financing Institutions; that no directions were issued by the
State regarding appointment of faculty in such Self Financing Institutions and
that the Government had no control over the management and fixation of
staff.
K) The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by Single Judge of the High
Court by judgment and order dated 08.01.2014. It was held that the Statutes
of the University contemplated only regular appointments; and that whenever
any appointments were supposed to be temporary the notifications made
specific reference in that behalf, whereas all the vacancies notified under
Notifications dated 15.07.1996 and 10.03.1998 were not stated to be
temporary. The Single Judge referred to Ext. P-26 which was copy of the
progress profile of the existing Technical Institution prepared by AICTE in
respect of the faculty including the appellants as:-
“13. Ext. P26 is the copy of the progress profile of the
existing approved technical institutions. The same was
prepared by AICTE. Ext.P26 contains Annexure-II,
which gives the details of teaching faculties. There, all
the petitioners were shown as permanent faculties.
This would indicate that for the purpose of getting
affiliation to AICTE, the respondent University has
projected the petitioners as permanent employees.”
Allowing the writ petition the Single Judge directed:-
“It is hereby declared that the petitioners are
regularly appointed permanent teachers of the
University appointed against substantive posts created
by the University. Needless to say that the petitioners
shall be entitled to the subsequent pay revision benefits
also. The concerned authority shall issue formal orders
extending the pay revision benefits to the petitioners
within a period of three months.”
L) Aggrieved by the view taken by the Single Jude, the University filed
Writ Appeal No.442 of 2014 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, in terms of the directives issued vide order
dated 01.02.2014, the University in its budget for the financial year 2015-
2016 included the income and expenditure of Self Financing Institutions in
the University fund. Same position was repeated for the next financial year
2016-2017.
M) The Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 20.11.2015. It
was concluded that the appellants were not teachers of the University within
the meaning of Section 2(30) of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985; that
they were not governed by Chapter III of the University Statutes and the
source of funds to meet the entire expenditure of the Self Financing
Institutions was the funds generated by such Financial Institutions out of the
fees collected from the students. The Division Bench observed that mere
statement that that the appellants would be governed by the University
Statutes would not confer any benefit upon the appellants and that the
University could not be compelled to treat the appellants on par with teachers
of the University. The Division Bench however recorded the statement of the
Counsel for the University that the University was prepared to grant benefits
of pay revision to the appellants with effect from 01.01.1996.
N) The appellants filed Review Petition No.151 of 2016 in the High Court
against aforesaid Order dated 20.11.2015. During the pendency of this
review petition, while dealing with challenge on behalf of the University
against the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court granting relief to
some other teachers from the same Self Financing Institution, Writ Appeal
No.727 of 2011 preferred by the University and other connected matters were
dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court on 07.12.2016. It was
observed:-
“19. It is the admitted case of the University, that an
establishment of the Self Financing Institutions, it had
issued notifications inviting applications for
appointment of teaching staff. The first of such
advertisement is Ext.P1 dated 20.12.1993 in
W.A.727/11 and it was followed by several other
notifications. Ext.P1, like all other notifications,
contained the qualifications to be satisfied by the
candidates. In pursuance to the notification, the
eligible applicants were considered and subjected to a
Selection process, which resulted in the select lists
already referred to as Exts.P22(a) and (b). The
Syndicate approved the select lists and recommended
the candidates for appointment. It was on that basis the
first respondent in W.A. 727/11 was appointed by
Annexure-I order, dated 21.04.1995. Contesting
respondents in the other writ appeals and the
petitioners in W.P.(C)2148/11 also entered service.”
O) The challenge to the decision of the Division Bench dated 07.12.2016 in
Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011 and other connected matters by the University in
Special Leave Petitions (Diary No.10974 of 2017 and other connected
matters) was rejected by this Court on 03.07.2017.
P) Review petition No.151 of 2016 was thereafter taken up for
consideration. The High Court did not find any error calling for interference
and the Review Petition was dismissed by order dated 20.09.2017.
5. The appellants, being aggrieved are challenging correctness of the
aforesaid judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench on 20.11.2015
and 20.09.2017. In its affidavit in reply filed in this Court, the stand taken by
the University is as under:
“It is submitted that just because some of the provisions
have been made applicable, does not mean that Petitioners
have bene appointed as regular/permanent employees of
University. Those provisions have been made applicable to
maintain the transparency and efficiency as at that point of
time there were no rules & regulations governing the self
financing institutions. The post against which the
Petitioners were appointed, were the post against which the
Petitioners were appointed, were the post under “School of
Technology Applied Sciences” which is the self financing
institution. The post under those institutions are temporary
in nature, as the same are not created after obtaining the
consent from the Govt. which was must for the University.
Applicability of the Rules and regulation of the university to
the self financing institution which has been affiliated with
the university by itself doesn’t lead to the conclusion that
the teachers appointed for the self financing institution are
the permanent teachers of the University”.
6. We have heard Dr. Gopakumaran Nair, learned Senior Advocate who led
the arguments on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned
Senior Advocate for the University and Mr. G. Prakash, learned Advocate for
the State of Kerala. It was submitted by the appellants that their appointments
were against substantive posts which were created after requisite Resolutions
were passed by the University; and that at no stage the appellants were
intimated that their appointments were for a temporary period. Reliance was
placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ
Appeal No.727 of 2011 which decision was affirmed by this Court, where a
diametrically opposite view was accepted. On the other hand, the University
reiterated its stand which was consistently taken all through, including in the
reply filed in this Court. However, no explanation was offered in respect of
the decision in Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011 and as to how both these lines of
decisions could be reconciled. In the written submissions filed on behalf of
the appellants, apart from reiterating the submissions advanced in the High
Court, the document submitted by the University while seeking extension of
approval granted by the AICTE for the college, for the academic year 2018-
2019, was also placed on record. Written submissions were also filed by the
University which inter alia placed minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate
held on 22.12.1995 on record in which the decision to set-up Self Financing
schools in various subjects was taken. According to the minutes, each school
under the Self Financing scheme was to be a viable unit.
7. In the backdrop of the facts as aforesaid, the instant matter can
broadly be classified under four segments: -
a) The stand taken by the University prior to the Order dated
23.03.2001 under which pay revisions to the teachers were given from
01.01.2001 instead of from 01.01.1996 and which described the teachers
of University College of Engineering as “temporarily appointment for a
period of three years or more”,
b) The effect of the stand taken in the Order dated 23.03.2001.
c) The stand taken by the University before authorities like AICTE
and later in submission of budget proposals, and
d) The mutually inconsistent views held by two Division Benches in
case of teachers of the same institution.
8.The first document on record is the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 06.07.1996 whereunder it was resolved to create posts of teachers at various levels in engineering disciplines for starting B. Tech courses. The Resolution clearly indicated that the posts of Professors and Lecturers in various branches of Engineering were without any qualification whereas by the same Resolution, posts of teachers in certain subjects like Geometrical drawing, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Humanities were to be filled on contractual or part time basis. The Order issued by the University on 10.07.1996 was in tune with the Resolution dated 06.07.1996. The Notification issued thereafter inviting applications from qualified candidates for posts of teachers was also consistent with earlier Resolution and the Order issued by the University. The sanction accorded by the Vice Chancellor for constituting screening or scrutinizing Committees for selection was also in same spirit. Thus, at no stage, the posts of teachers in engineering disciplines were referred to or described as contractual or on part time basis. Same thought was carried in Resolution passed by the Syndicate in the Meeting held on 05.08.1997 for creating additional posts in engineering disciplines. The order dated 25.08.1997 passed by the University was again a reflection of the Resolution passed by the Syndicate on 05.08.1997. The appellants were appointed pursuant to selection undertaken in terms of Notification dated 15.07.1996 or Resolution dated 05.08.1997. Their appointment orders did not mention anything that the appointments were contractual or on part time basis. The appointment orders in fact stated that the appointment would be governed by the provisions of the University Statutes. The subsequent Notification dated 10.03.1998 inviting applications for further additional posts was also in the same light. All these documents unequivocally suggest that the appointments of the appellants were not on contractual basis or for a limited period of time. Whenever appointments were to be for limited duration or on contractual basis, a clear stipulation was always made in the concerned Resolution or Notification. The facts on record indicate that the appointments of the appellants were on permanent basis and that they were appointed through regular selection process. The appellants are right in submitting that their appointments were on substantive basis and not on contractual basis or for limited duration of time. The facts in the first segment, therefore, are definitely in favour of the appellants.
9.The Order issued by the University on 04.08.1999 extended the benefits of the Kerala Government Pay Revision, 1997 to the Non-Teaching (Technical) staff. The Order issued by the Government of Kerala on 18.05.2000 for implementing revised scales of pay for teachers in Engineering Colleges in the State contemplated extension of revision in line with the recommendations of AICTE as approved by the Government of India with effect from 01.01.1996. Though similar benefits were extended by the University to the teachers of University College of Engineering, the benefits were restricted and the effect was given from 01.01.2001 instead of 01.01.1996. No reason is available on record why such benefit was restricted and the only explanation offered is that the teachers of University College of Engineering were temporarily appointed for a period of three years or more. As the facts in the first segment indicate that the appointments of the appellants were not temporary and that they were appointed against substantive posts, which were created pursuant to resolutions passed by the concerned authorities, there was no reason to limit the scope of extension of benefits. Even the Principal of the University College of Engineering in letter dated 18.04.2001 voiced a concern that the teachers in the College were not temporary and that they would otherwise be entitled to the extension of some financial benefits. His letter in that behalf is quite eloquent. The steps taken and the stand adopted thereafter by the University is on the premise that the University College of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences was a Self Financing Institution which was not getting any grants from the Government/All India Council and that it was not part of 20 Departments listed under the Statutes of the University. There is nothing on record to indicate that when the School of Technical and Applied Sciences was set up there was any resolution or decision by the University or its competent bodies to set up such School of Technical and Applied Sciences as a separate Institution. The University had secured conditional approval from the AICTE on 31.05.1996 and had thereafter caused steps to be taken for creation of posts and appointment of teachers against said posts. The University cannot dissociate itself and claim said University college of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences to be otherwise than part of the University.
10.We now move to the third segment. It is interesting to note that even after such stand was taken by the University in the year 2001, in its communications with AICTE, at every stage the faculty position in said College of Engineering was always referred to and described as permanent faculty. Progress Profile of the existing Technical Institution prepared by AICTE which was referred to by the Single Judge is very clear that the appellants were shown to be part of permanent faculty and were projected to be permanent employees of the University. It would not therefore be proper on part of the University to brand the very same faculty to be on contractual basis or for a limited duration of time. It is also a matter of record that during the budget for financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, the income and expenditure of Self Financing Institutions were included in the University Fund and thus the Self Financing Institutions were within the fold of the University.
11.The facts as culled out in these three segments, point only in one direction that the appellants were appointed against substantive posts and were always treated to be on permanent basis. At no stage were they informed either through any Resolution or through any individual communication that their appointments were temporary or contractual basis. The only document which purportedly supports the stand taken by the University is the Resolution of the statutory Finance Committee of the University held on 05.08.1997. This Resolution was brought on record only in the year 2011 through an affidavit of the University. According to this Resolution, the item was taken as an additional item on the Agenda while approving Budget Estimates and the Committee had recommended to create the posts “for a period of three years”. Ironically, on the same day a Resolution was passed by the Syndicate of the University about creation of teaching and non-teaching (technical) posts for the University College of Engineering. It is the Resolution of the Syndicate which is referred in the order passed by the University on 25.08.1997 and not the Resolution of the statutory Finance Committee. The Order dated 25.08.1997 also did not qualify the posts to be limited for three years. Similarly, the document placed on record through written submissions, i.e. the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed in the meeting dated 22.12.1995 would again have no bearing. That was a Resolution passed when the AICTE approval was not yet granted. What is material to consider are the steps taken by the University after the approval was granted, when the posts were created, applications from the concerned candidates were invited and individual appointments were made. Those steps do not indicate any qualification or restriction insofar as the terms of employment were concerned. We, therefore, do not find anything on record which could substantiate the stand taken by the University.
12.Lastly, we must notice a peculiar feature of the matter that even after the Division Bench had ruled against the appellants in the present matter and while their review was pending before the Division Bench, in separately instituted proceedings, the Division Bench of the same High Court had accepted similar challenge raised by some other teachers from the same Self Financing Institution and by its order dated 07.12.2016 had ruled in their favour. The order dated 07.12.2016 was affirmed by this Court and Special Leave Petitions were therefrom dismissed. We have not proceeded only on the fact that the decision of the Division Bench dated 07.12.2016 having stood affirmed by this Court, nothing more is required to be done in the matter. We have gone through the record in its entirety, which record, in our view, points completely in the direction of the appellants and in their favour. We have therefore no hesitation in accepting the contentions of the appellants.
13.We, therefore, allow these appeals set aside the judgment and orders under appeal and restore the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Single Judge in O.P.(Civil) No.3818 of 2013.
14.No costs. Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 4255-4256 of 2018 (Jacob K Daniel vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills & Anr.) Since the written submissions filed by the University show that the appointment order of the petitioner had clearly stipulated the appointment to be temporary, we segregate this matter and direct that it be listed before the appropriate court in due course. (Uday Umesh Lalit) (Indira Banerjee) New Delhi, February 28, 2019.