SUBHASH CHANDER ETC. v. STATE — 1978 DIGILAW 2 (HP)

JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, J.—The petitioners herein are the employees of Himachal Pradesh University and have Sled this writ petition challenging the seniority list found at Annexures C and M as also the promotion of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 as Superintendents on 5-11-1973 as per Annexure F’. 2. The short question which is involved in the above referred challenges is whether, for the purpose of fixing seniority as between the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 9 to 12, the services rendered by the latter in the past with the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Agriculture Department should be taken into account or not. The short facts forming the back ground between the parties are as under: 3. The Himachal Pradesh University was established by section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh University Act (Act No. 17 of I97o), which came into force on 22-7-1970, and which is hereafter referred to as "the Act." Before that, educational institutions in Himachal Pradesh were run by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, and Punjab University Chandigarh. The Agricultural University Ludhiana was running an Agricultural Complex at Palampur and also some research and extension education centres within this Pradesh. The Punjab University Chandigarh was running a regional centre for post-graduate students, and an Evening College, at Simla. It appears that apart from the above institutions run by the Agricultural University Ludhiana, the Government of Himachal Pradesh was also running through its Department of Agriculture, a college of agriculture at Solan, and other Reserach and Extension Education Centres at various places in the Pradesh. With the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh University in the year 19/0, it was decided that all these institutions should be taken over by the newly formed University. Since the institutions which were already in existence bad a special emphasis on agriculture, section 24 of the Act visualises an Agricultural Complex made of different existing agricultural institutions. This section 24 provides as under :— "24. Since the institutions which were already in existence bad a special emphasis on agriculture, section 24 of the Act visualises an Agricultural Complex made of different existing agricultural institutions. This section 24 provides as under :— "24. Agricultural Complex.—There shall be an Agricultural Complex and it shall consist of,— (a) the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College, Solan ; (b) the Agaicultural College at Palampur pertaining to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana ; (c) the Research Stations, Extension Centres, Extension Education Units and any other property of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, located in Himachal Pradesh ; (d) the Research Stations and Extension Education Units which may be transferred from time to time by the State Government to the University ; and (e) any other college or institution that may he declared hereafter by the Statutes as part of the Agricultural complex." This section shows that the Agricultural Complex was to be constituted by the newly formed University taking over different agricultural institutions run by Agricultural University Ludhiana as well as by the Government in the Pradesh area. 4. So far as the institutions run by the Punjab University Chandigarh were concerned, section 8 of the Act contemplates how the transfer of their assets, liabilities and employees should be affected. So far as the present petition is concerned, it is not relevant to state on what conditions the employees of these institutions were to be transferred. 5. In this case we are concerned with the transfer of the services of those who were serving the Agricultural Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh which was controlling the Agricultural College at Solan, and other Research and Extension Centres at various places. The Act does not make any special provision with regard to the conditions of transfer of employees of agricultural institutions run by the Agricultural University Ludhiana and the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Agriculture Department. Such a provision is, however, found in statute 38 of the First Statutes framed under sections 38 and 39 of the Act. This statute 38 is in the following terms :— "38. Conditions of service. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 35 of the Act, every employee of the Agricultural College, Palampur and Research and Extension Education Centres of the Punjab Agricultural University. This statute 38 is in the following terms :— "38. Conditions of service. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 35 of the Act, every employee of the Agricultural College, Palampur and Research and Extension Education Centres of the Punjab Agricultural University. Ludhiana, transferred to the University vide section 5 (3) of the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act No. 16 of 1970 of the Parliament shall on the commencement of this Act, Holding office as such immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall become the employees of the University : Provided that : (a) Such employees of the above-mentioned institutions shall be allowed to exercise an option whether or not they wish their services to be taken over by the University ; (b) the existing rights and service conditions of such employees who opt for service in the University shall be protected ; (c) any service rendered by any such employee before such transfer of his service to the University shall be deemed to be service rendered in connection with the administration of the University, on the condition that their leave, pension and provident fund and gratuity contribution in respect of the service rendered by them to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana shall be reimbursed to the University by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. In the event of any dispute or difficulty in the matter of implementation of the provisions of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) the matter shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. (2) The employees of the Himachal Pradesh Government posted ii Himachal Pradesh College of Agriculture, Solan and the Research and Extension Education Centres to be transferred to the University from time to time become the employees of the University on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the State Government and the University : Provided that such employees of either of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (1) and (2) shall be offered an option as to whether they would like to opt for either of the two retirement benefits applicable to the entrants in the service of the University." From the perusal of this statute 38 it is apparent that it is divided into two parts. The first part is with reference to the transfer of every employee of the Agricultural College, Palampur and Research and Extension Centres of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhlana to the newly formed University and provides that the employees of these institutions shall become the employees of the University. The proviso which is attached to clause (1) of statute 38 mentions the conditions on which the services of the said employees are to be transferred to the University. Clause (2) of this statute refers to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Government posted in Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College, Solan and other Research and Extension Education Centres under the control of the Agriculture Department. This clause (2) unlike clause (1), does not provide for any specific terms and conditions on which the services are required to be transferred to the University, but says that the employees whose services are to be transferred to the University from time to time shall become the emyloyees of the University on "such terms and conditions" as may be agreed upon between the State Government and the University. So far as this writ petition is concerned we are primarily concerned with this clause (2) of statute 38 because respondents nos. 9 to 12, whose seniority is in dispute, are admittedly the servants of the Agriculture Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government who are transferred to the University. 6. Here it should be noted that it is almost an admitted fact that so far as the employees of the Agriculture Department of Himachal Pradesh Government were concerned, there was a common cadre and a common seniority list of all of them with the result that even if at the time when the Agricultural College, Solan and other Research and Extension Education Centres were transferred to the University, a particular person was serving in any of these institutions, the fact that he was posted and serving in these institutions at that time, was purely a fortuitous circumstance because he was sharing a common seniority list with other members of the staff of his cadre serving in the whole of the Agriculture Department of the Government. 7. We have already referred to the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act which contemplates the creation of an Agricultural Complex in the University. 7. We have already referred to the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act which contemplates the creation of an Agricultural Complex in the University. The provisions of this section 24 show that the different agricultural institutions which were functioning in the area of the Pradesh were to constitute the Agricultural Complex and were to be run in future by the newly formed University. Now in so far as the .institutions which were run directly by the Agriculture Department of the Government were concerned, the employees of these institutions became surplus in the hands of the Government and, therefore, their transfer to the University became necessary as contemplated by clause (2) of statute 38 of the First Statutes. Even the newly formed University was obviously in requirement of some administrative staff which had some past experience and, therefore, it was one of the requirements of the newly formed University to take up upon its staff the members of service in the Agriculture Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government so that the affairs of the newly formed University would be run rather efficiently. 8. In view of these circumstances, the respondents Nos. 9 and 11, who were serving in the office of the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh as head clerks and respondents No. 10 and 12 who were working as head clerks in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Kandaghat and District Agriculture Officer. Dharamsala respectively, were transferred to the University. They were relieved respectively on 15-3-1972, 1-4-1972, 20-10-1973 and 28-8-1973. The case of the petitioners, therefore, is that their seniority in the cadre of headclerks-cum-assistants should be counted from the date of their entry in the service of the Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioners further claim that they themselves are the direct recruits who have been recruited as assistants from 7-5-1971 to 28-12-1972. According to the petitioners, therefore, their inter se seniority should be considered from the date of their entry into the service of the University. 9. As already stated above, the employees belonging to the Himachal Pradesh College of Agriculture, Solan and the Research and Extension Education Centres conducted by the Government were to be transferred to the University on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the State Government and the University. 9. As already stated above, the employees belonging to the Himachal Pradesh College of Agriculture, Solan and the Research and Extension Education Centres conducted by the Government were to be transferred to the University on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the State Government and the University. Now the case of the respondents is that these terms and conditions were agreed upon between the Government on the one hand, and the University on the other, through joint meetings of their representatives and subsequent correspondence which took place between the Government and the University. For proving these terms and conditions, on which the services of the head clerks who were serving in the Agriculture Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government were transferred, the respondents have relied mainly upon the proceedings dated 29-3-ly/l drawn in the meeting held between the representatives of the University and the Government and the subsequent letter of the Government written to the Vice-Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University on 23-6-1971. The proceedings of the above referred meeting between the representatives of the Government and the University held on 29-3-1971 are found at Annexure R-4 and a copy of the Government letter dated 23-6-1971 is found at page 170 of the paper book uhe same is not given a separate annexure number). So far as the proceedings of the above referred meeting are concerned, they show that the meeting was attended to by the Vice-Chancellor of the University one Dr. R. K. Singh, Mr. K. L. Sethi, Advisor, Mr. P. K. Mattoo, Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mr. Negi, Secretary, Chief Secretarys Branch, Mr. Anang Pal, Secretary to the Chief Minister and Dr. B. S. Jogi, Director of Agriculture. The proceedings show that the meeting decided that the follow ing should be the terms and conditions which would govern the transfer of employees from the State Government to the University :— (i) The deemed date of transfer shall be 22-7-70, the date on which Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 came into operation. (ii) The employee who stands transferred to the University shall be offered an option as to whether he would like to opt for either of the two retirement benefits applicable to the entrants in the service of the University. (iii) The existing pay scale of the employee shall remain unchanged on his transfer to the University. (ii) The employee who stands transferred to the University shall be offered an option as to whether he would like to opt for either of the two retirement benefits applicable to the entrants in the service of the University. (iii) The existing pay scale of the employee shall remain unchanged on his transfer to the University. Existing pay scale for the purpose of this clause shall mean the scale to which the employee was entitled on 22-7-70. (iv) The existing designation of the emloyee will not be changed, the designation shall, however, not entitle the employee to claim as a matter of right any pay scale other than his existing scale of pay. (v) The seniority of an employee vis-a-vis any employee of the University in the Agricultural Complex shall be determined in consonance with the rules framed by the University from time to time. (vi) The employee shall have an option to opt for University conditions of service in respect of leave, pension/gratuity and Provident Fund, age of retirement, medical facilities and allied matters within a period of 3 months from the date of publication of these terms and conditions. The choice once exercised will be final." So far as these proceedings are concerned, at this stage, the condition No. (i), which refers to the deemed date of transfer as 22-7-1970, should be taken note of. 10. It appears that thereafter some correspondence took place between the University on the one hand and the Government on the other, but ultimately the Government wrote to the University the letter found at page 170 of the paper book which is dated 23-6-1971. This letter is very important and, therefore, it is quoted as a whole :— "No. 16-50/ 0/Agr (Sectt) Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Agriculture. From :— The Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla-2. To The Vice Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hill, Simla-5. Simla-2, the 23rd June, 1971. Subject—Transfer of staff of Himachal Pradesh Agriculture College, Solan, Research Stations and Extension Education Units to the Himachal Pradesh University. I am directed to state that the Himachal Pradesh Government have decided to transfer to Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College at Solan to the Himachal Pradesh University in pursuance of section 24 (a) of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 with effect from a date to be intimated very shortly in July, 1971. I am directed to state that the Himachal Pradesh Government have decided to transfer to Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College at Solan to the Himachal Pradesh University in pursuance of section 24 (a) of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 with effect from a date to be intimated very shortly in July, 1971. In this connection it may be stated that according to the provision of statute 38 (2) of the First Statutes of the Himachal Pradesh University adopted and notified under sub section (1) of section 39 of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, vide notification No. 4-?/69 Agr. (Sectt) Edu. I, dated 1st August, 1970 the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Government posted in the Himachal Pradesh College of Agriculture, Solan and the Research Stations and Extension Education Units, to be transferred to the University from time to time would become the employees of the University on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the State Government and the University. As you are aware, a number of meetings have been held by the State Government with the University to decide upon such terms and conditions. As a result thereof and also the discussion I had with you, the Government of Himachal Pradesh have now decided that the employee of the aforesaid institutions will be offered a comparable post in the University carrying the same designations, pay scale and status presently held by them to become the employees of the Himachal Pradesh University on the following terms and conditions : (i) The University will protect the scale of pay of the post presently held by them as also the emoluments drawn by them, so long as they continue to be exployed in the same post. The designation will not entitle them to claim as a matter of right, any pay scale other than the existing scale of pay. (ii) On employment by the University, such employees will cease to be in Government service. Their past services in Government which have been taken into account by the Department of Agriculture, will, however, be taken into account by the University for all purposes including leave, pension etc. provided that they shall have an option to choose whether they will opt for either of the two retirement benefits applicable to the entrants in the service of the Himachal Pradesh University. provided that they shall have an option to choose whether they will opt for either of the two retirement benefits applicable to the entrants in the service of the Himachal Pradesh University. Their present status as permanent, quasi-permanent or temporary will also remain unaffected. 2. Necessary notices to dispense with the services of the staff of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College, Solan are being issued, to such of the incumbents whether permanent or temporary, on the abolition of their posts in the Governments guaranteeing hem the terminal benefits as admissible under the rules for employees retrenched from services, with an offer that the Himachal Pradesh University is prepared to employ them, if they are willing to serve them on the terms and conditions specified above. In the event of their accepting the employment of a comparable post carrying the same designation, pay scales, status, in the University, terminal benefits as laid down in the rules will not be admissible to them. This provision is in conformity with article 426 (b) of C. S. R. which provides that if an officer selected for discharge owing to abolition of post, is offered a comparable post, with comparable conditions of service, the previous service rendered will be counted for purpose of pension etc. Another category of employees in the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural College, Solan are those who are presently officiating in higher or equivalent posts having liens on permanent posts in the Department of Agriculture or elsewhere. They have also been served with a notice that, consequent upon abolition of posts in the Agricultural College, they shall either have to revert to the permanent posts held by them in substantive capacity or to accept employment of the Himachal Pradesh University on the terms and conditions specified above. Each employee has been asked to give his consent whether he is willing to serve the Himachal Pradesh University and asked to send his acceptance to the Government in duplicate with a copy to the University. Final decision placing their services at the disposal of the University will be issued on receipt of the consent of each employee. 3. It may be added that the ministerial staff at present posted in the College and Research Institutions etc. are borne on a common seniority list of the Agriculture Department. Final decision placing their services at the disposal of the University will be issued on receipt of the consent of each employee. 3. It may be added that the ministerial staff at present posted in the College and Research Institutions etc. are borne on a common seniority list of the Agriculture Department. If some of them do not accept the offer to serve in the University, the Government will have staff surplus to their needs. To solve this problem, it is proposed that, after receipt of replies to the offer (when the number of staff not willing to join the University is known), Government will give a notice of termination of service to an equal number of staff who are junior most and liable to be retrenched, and offer them for absorption in the University on ministerial jobs vacated by the present incumbents choosing to stay back. 4. Similar action is being initialed separately for transfer of research Stations and Extension Education Units to the University. 5. The question of settlement of liabilities in respect of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity etc. of the employee is being examined and will be decided later on in consultation with the University." The point to be noted at this stage is that clause (ii) of the terms and conditions mentioned in this letter specifically states that the employees who would be transferred from the Government service to the University service shall cease to the Government servants and "their past services in the Government which have been taken into account by the Department of Agriculture will be taken into account by the University for all purposes including leave, pension etc." 11. It was after the above referred letter was written by the Government to the University, conveying the terms and conditions on which the employees of the Agriculture Department of the Government were proposed to be transferred to the University, that the Agricultural College at Solan and other institutions, which were to constitute the Agricultural Complex, and which were run by the Government, were transferred by the Government to the University. Annexures A and ‘S show that these institutions were transferred in the month of July, 1971, that is, after the above referred letter dated 23-6-1971 was addressed by the Government to the University, Reference to Annexure R further shows that some more institutions were also transferred by the Government to the University on 17-5-1974. Annexures A and ‘S show that these institutions were transferred in the month of July, 1971, that is, after the above referred letter dated 23-6-1971 was addressed by the Government to the University, Reference to Annexure R further shows that some more institutions were also transferred by the Government to the University on 17-5-1974. 12. It is found that thereafter on 27-1-1972 the Directorate of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh issued different memorandums to different employees working in the Agriculture Department as per the specimen found their option. Both these respondents exercised their option and joined the University service on the footing that the past service rendered by them in the Government in the Department of Agriculture would betaken into account for all purposes including seniority etc. 13. It is found that about five months after the publication of the seniority list as per Annexure C the petitioner filed a representation on 11-9 U73 as found at Annexure E\ 14. In the same month, that is, in month of September 1973, the Government was prepared to transfer six posts of head clerks to the University which the University accepted as per the decision of the Executive Council dated 29-9-1973 ^vide annexure R-3). On 2-lt-19/3 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh wrote a letter Annexure R-2 to the Registrar of Himachal Pradesh University by which he informed the University that the three head clerks who had opted to go to the University would be taken by the University and the rest of the posts against which no headclerk was willing to go to the University will be sent as vacant. This obviously refers to the six posts which were transferred by the Government to the University and which the University had accepted as per the Executive Councils resolution found at Annexure R-3. 15. As the petitioners had represented against the seniority list referred to above, the University seems to have made some enquiries from the Government. The record of this case contains Annexure T’ which is the letter written by the Registrar of the University to the Agriculture Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh on 3-11-1973. By this letter the Registrar of the University stated that the terms and conditions agreed upon between the Government and the University with regard to the transfer of Government employees were not found in his office. By this letter the Registrar of the University stated that the terms and conditions agreed upon between the Government and the University with regard to the transfer of Government employees were not found in his office. he Registrar, therefore, requested that a copy of the agreement, if any entered upon between the two parties should be supplied to him immediately. The record of this case contains nothing to show what was the immediate reply of the Government to this letter. 16.However, the record shows that on 5-11-1973 that is, two days after the above referred letter was written, respondents nos. 9 and 10 were promoted as Superintendents as per Annexure ‘F’ Evidently this promotion was based on the strength of the seniority which was given to them in the above referred seniority list found at Annexure C. 17. The record of this case does not contain the full correspondence between the University and the Government with regard to the above referred letter Annexure T, but it is found that ultimately on 21-2-1974 the petitioners representation was rejected as per memo Annexure G. On the next day, that is, on 22-2-1974, the petitioners filed second representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University as found at Annexure H\ 21. The record of this case shows that, after receiving this second representation of the petitioners, the University made further deliberations in the matter. This is evident from Annexure T which is an extract from the proceedings of the Executive Committee which met on 14-3-1974. This extract shows that the Executive Committee was of the opinion that before it expressed its views as to what were the terms and conditions on which the Government employees were transferred to the University, it was necessary to decide who was competent authority of the present the University in settling these terms and conditions. Ultimately it is found that on 1-11-1974 the Executive Council of the University met again and passed the resolution as found at Annexure ‘K. This resolution shows that the Executive Council has proceeded on the basis that the Vice-Chancellor of the University concluded the terms and conditions on which the Government employees were to be transferred in exercise of his emergency powers contemplated by statute 2 (5) of the First Statutes. The Executive Council, herefore, condom d the delay cause by the Vice-Chancellor in getting the ratification of this agreement and resolved to agree to the following terms and conditions of transfer of the Government employees to the University and also resolved to treat these terms and conditions of the agreement as those covered by clause (2) of statute 38 of the First Statutes. The terms and conditions which were thus ratified by the Executive Council are the same which have been quoted above while quoting Annexure R-4. 22. Thereafter in the meeting held by the Executive Council of the University on 17,18 and 19th May, 1975 it was resolved as under :— "After a most careful consideration of the pros and cons of the case including the points raised by the representatives of the employees taken from the Agriculture Department of Himachal Pradesh Government as well as new entrants to the University service, the Committee has come to the conclusion that irrespective of the wording of the correspondence between the University and the H. P. Government on the subject it is a case of virtual transfer and that the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Government (Agriculture Department) are entitled to count their past services towards seniority in the University. The case is analogous to that of the employees of the Punjab Government which were taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as a result of the reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab." The extract of this resolution is found at Annexure R-7. In the same month, that is, in the month of May, 1975, the Government addressed one letter on 25-5-1975 to the University as found at Annexure R-l in this connection, wherein they informed the University that the University had agreed to take into account the services of the employees which were taken into account by the Department of Agriculture for all purposes including leave, pension etc. which would obviously include seniority which would count from the date of their regular appointments in respective grades of the Agriculture Department. which would obviously include seniority which would count from the date of their regular appointments in respective grades of the Agriculture Department. This letter further explains this position in the following terms :— "this was done under extraordinary circumstances but equal number of posts were simultaneously created with the University with the funds and grant-in aid from the Government the posts in fact were not surplus, and new continue to be in existence with the University instead of with the department of Agriculture. In view of the assurances given by the Vice-Chancellor, time and again I am to request that the service conditions and other interests of the employees of the department of Agriculture who became employees of the Himachal Pradesh University may kindly be given full protection to avoid frustration and possible hinderance in transfer of Research Stations to the University in future." This letter of the Government, therefore, explains under what circumstances and conditions the agricultural institutions controlled by the Government were transferred and under what conditions and circumstances the services of the employees working in the Agriculture Department of the Government were also transferred 10 the University. 23. Ultimately on 30 5-1975 even the second representation filed by the petitioners was rejected by the University. Thereafter even the respondents nos. 11 and 12 were also informed by the University that their past services would be taken into account and then on 9/llth June, 1975 the second seniority list as on 1-6-1975 was published by the University as found at Annexure M\ This second seniority list is based on the same principle on which the first seniority list was based. 24. It is evident from the facts stated above that the case of the petitioners is that, for the purpose of seniority and further promotion, the past services rendered by the respondents nos. 9 to 12 in the Government before their coming into the University service should not have been taken into account. According to the petitioners the seniority of all the servants of the University should be taken as from the date on which they joined the University service. 25. In the petition the petitioners have contended that in fact no agreement between the Government and the University with regard to the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees were to be transferred, has been found or proved. 25. In the petition the petitioners have contended that in fact no agreement between the Government and the University with regard to the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees were to be transferred, has been found or proved. It is alternatively contended by the petitioners that even if any such agreement is found the said agreement is not legal inasmuch as it does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution. 26. The learned Advocate of the petitioners further contended that if the services of the emploees of the Agriculture Department were transferred to the University they were not transferred in compliance with the terms of the second clause of statute 38 which contemplates the transfer of only those servants who were posted in the Agricultural College, Solan and various Research and Extension Education Centres which were handed over by the Government to the University. In this connection it was pointed out that instead of confining the transfer of the employees posted in these institutions, the Government have transferred the employees who were not posted in these institutions at the relevant time and, therefore, the transfer of the respondents No. 9 to 12 who were not serving in any of these institutions contemplated by clause (2) of statute 38 was illegal. 27. Further contention which was raised was that the transfer of the Government emplovees with a stipulation to take their past service into account for all purposes would amount to an appointment with retrospective effect which could not have been legally done by the Government. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioners that, since certain posts were rendered surplus on account of the transfer of certain institutions to the University, the Government should have transferred its employees strictly on principle of last come first go and since this principle is not followed in case of the transfer of respondents nos. 9 to 1?, an illegality has been created. 28. It was lastly contended that the second seniority list found at Annexure M was not in conformity with the rules of recruitment inasmuch as even though respondents nos. 10 and 12 are not confirmed they are shown senior even to those petitioners who are confirmed. 29. On behalf of the respondents one preliminary point about laches is raised. 30. 28. It was lastly contended that the second seniority list found at Annexure M was not in conformity with the rules of recruitment inasmuch as even though respondents nos. 10 and 12 are not confirmed they are shown senior even to those petitioners who are confirmed. 29. On behalf of the respondents one preliminary point about laches is raised. 30. We shall first deal with the plea of laches raised by the respondents. In the foregoing narration of facts we have elaborately stated the different stages of development during the course of which the first seniority list was published on 13-4-1973. About five months thereafter the petitioners made the representation found at Annexure E. This representation was rejected on 21-21974. Immediately thereafter on 22-2-1974 the petitioners filed second representation. It was contended that there was no scope for filing this second representation, and therefore, the fact that the petitioners filed second representation would not help them. It is true that repeated representations which are not provided by rules would not help a particular petitioner to save his writ petition from the vice of laches. But the peculiar /acts of this case show that the University authorities themselves took this second representation very seriously and made certain inquiries from the Government in order to know what were the exact terms and conditions on which the Government employees were transferred to the University. We have elaborately narrated all the different stops taken by the University in this connection as well as the correspondence between the University and the Government. Under the circumstances, the University authorities themselves by their conduct created an impression in the minds of the petitioners that their representation was being very seriously considered. That being so, the petitioners were not justified in rushing to this Court by filing a writ petition when they knew that the concerned authorities were considering even their second representation very seriously. This second representation was ultimately rejected on 30-5-1975 and the petitioners there after approached this Court immediately in the month of June, 1975. Under these circumstances we find that it is not possible to say that this writ petition suffers from the vice of laches. 31. This second representation was ultimately rejected on 30-5-1975 and the petitioners there after approached this Court immediately in the month of June, 1975. Under these circumstances we find that it is not possible to say that this writ petition suffers from the vice of laches. 31. Now coming to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, the first contention was that in fact there is no agreement between the Government and the University which could convey in clear terms the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees were transferred to the University. Considering the documents which are produced in the record of the case, we do not find any substance in this contention. While narrating the facts of the case we have referred to the two important documents from which the terms and conditions on which the services of the employees of the Government were transferred to the University can be clearly ascertained. The first document is the resolution passed in the meeting dated 29-3-1971 of the repmentatives of the University and the Government decide as endorsed by the Executive Council of the University as per its resolution dated 1-11-1974 as found at Annexure K’ and the second document is the above quoted letter of the Government; dated 23-6-1971. If both these documents are read together it becomes evident that the services of the Government employees ir. the Agriculture Department were transferred on the clear understanding that their past services rendered by them in the Agriculture Department would be taken into account for all purposes including leave, pension et:. The use of the expression "all purposes" does not limit the consideration of their past service only to a particular item. Leave and pension are mentioned therein only in the inclusive sense. But it is abundantly clear from this letter as well as from the option which the respondents were given as per above referred memorandums that the services of the Government employees were transferred to the University on a clear condition that their past services will be taken into account even for the purpose of seniority. In fact, the University has imolemented this and, therefore, it is clear that, in the mind of the Government as well as in the mind of the University there was no misunderstanding as regards the terms and conditions on which the Government employees were transferred to the University. In fact, the University has imolemented this and, therefore, it is clear that, in the mind of the Government as well as in the mind of the University there was no misunderstanding as regards the terms and conditions on which the Government employees were transferred to the University. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention of the petitioners that this agreement is not proved to be in existence. 32. It was then contended that even if the above referred agreement is found to be in existence, the same is not legal as it does not comply with the formalities contemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution. In our opinion, any reference to Article 299 of the Constitution with a view to decide the legality of such agreement is wholly irrelevant because Article 299 refers to contracts which have been made in exercise of the executive power either of the Union or of the State. The word "contract" which is found used in Article 299 of the Constitution should gather its meaning from the context in which this article is placed in the scheme of the Constitution. The foregoing Article 298 provides that the executive power of the Union and of each State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition of holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. Since this Article 298 thus extends the executive power of the State even to the making of a contract, Article 299, which succeeds Article 298, provides for the form in which such contracts could be expressed. Therefore, when Article 299 refers to contracts, the word "contract" means a mutual agreement with reciprocal promises each of which form consideration for the other the promises which could be legally enforced in a court of law. The question is whether the agreement as regards the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees should be transferred to the University is an agreement which could be comprehended by the meaning of the word "contract" which is given above. It is obvious that an agreement to transfer administrative services on certain terms and conditions does not amount to any such contract as there is no mutuality of any reciprocal promises which could be enforced in law. It is obvious that an agreement to transfer administrative services on certain terms and conditions does not amount to any such contract as there is no mutuality of any reciprocal promises which could be enforced in law. The fact of the matter is that the Government was not bound to transfer any of its employees to the University nor was the University entitled to compel the Government in law to transfer its employees. The agreement which was to be reached between the University and the Government in this connection was purely a matter of policy, and even after it was reached, none of the parties could enforce its terms in a court of law. In this connection we may refer to the decision given by the Patna High Court in P. N. Strkar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 Pat 366 wherein Ramaswami C. J. speaking for the Bench has held that the expression "contract" in Article 299 of the Constitution and Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act must be given a restricted meaning so as to exclude the case of the Government servants whose employment though originating in contract is regulated after appointment by statutory rules and regulations and not by contract, ft is further observed in that decision that the expression "contract" in Article 299 applies only to commercial transactions and not to contract of employment of Government servants. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the agreement between the Government and the University with reference to the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees were transferred to the University was not the one which came within the purview of Article 299 of the Constitution. 33. The next point which was raised on behalf of the petitioners was that though according to the second clause of statute 38 the employees posted in only two types of institutions were to be transferred, (he Government have transferred the respondents nos. 9 to 12 even though they were not at the relevant time posted in these two institutions. According to the petitioners, therefore, the transfers of respondents no. 9 to 12 have been in violation of clause (2) of statute 38. 34. While considering this contention the first question which arises to be considered is whether statute 38 carries with it any statutory force of Jaw or not. According to the petitioners, therefore, the transfers of respondents no. 9 to 12 have been in violation of clause (2) of statute 38. 34. While considering this contention the first question which arises to be considered is whether statute 38 carries with it any statutory force of Jaw or not. Shri Inder Singh, the learned Advocate of the University, contended that these statutes were framed by the Government pursuant to section 1-8 of the Act. It was pointed out that perusal of the provisions of section 38 of the Act shows that there was no power delegated in favour of the Government to frame the statute of the type which is found in statute 38. According to the learned Advocate of the University, therefore, statute 38 has no statutory force, and therefore, only a spirit thereof prevailed and a strict compliance was not necessary. 35. Section 38 of the Act is in the following terms : — "38. According to the learned Advocate of the University, therefore, statute 38 has no statutory force, and therefore, only a spirit thereof prevailed and a strict compliance was not necessary. 35. Section 38 of the Act is in the following terms : — "38. Statutes.—Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes may provide for or any of the following matters, namely :— (a) the constitution, powers and duties of the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Board of Management and other authorities of the University and such other odies as may be deemed necessary to constitute from time to time ; (b) the election and continuance in office of the members of the said bodies, including the continuance in office of the first members, and the filling of vacancies of members, and ail other matters relative to those bodies for which it may be necessary or desirable to provide ; (c) the appointment, powers and duties of the officers of the University : (d) the constitution of a pension or provident fund and the establishment of an insurance scheme for the benefit of the officers, teachers and other employees of the University ; (e) the conferment of honorary degrees and other distinctions ; (f) the withdrawal of Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions ; (g) the establishment and abolition of Faculties, Department, Halls, Hostels, Colleges and Institutions ; (h) the conditions under which colleges and other institutions may be admitted to the privileges of the University and the withdrawal of such privileges ; (i) the institution of Fellowships, Scholarships, Studentships, Exhibitions, Medals and Prizes ; and (j) all other matters which by this Act are to be or may be provided for by the Statutes." All the different clauses of section 38 refer to the different subjects on which the Government was empowered to frame the First Statutes. On scrutiny of all these clauses it is found that the statute like the one which is found at number 38 was not covered by any of these clauses of section 38. The clause (c) of section 38 speaks about the statute relating to "the appointment, powers and duties of officers of the University". On scrutiny of all these clauses it is found that the statute like the one which is found at number 38 was not covered by any of these clauses of section 38. The clause (c) of section 38 speaks about the statute relating to "the appointment, powers and duties of officers of the University". The head clerks of the University are not found to be the officers of the University because the expression "officer of the University" is defined in section 10 of the Act as under :— "Officers of the University.—-The following shall be the officers of the University :— (i) the Chancellor ; (ii) the Vice-Chancellor ; (iii) the Dean of the Agricultural Complex ; (iv) the Dean of Faculties ; (v) the Registrar ; (vi) the Finance Officer ; and (vii) such other persons in the service of the. University as may be declared by the tatutes to be the officers of the University." Statute 6 of the First Statutes defines other officers of the University as under:— Other officers of the University.—(1) The following shall also be the officers of the University:— (a) Librarian ; (b) Dean of Students Welfare ; (c) Dean of Studies (Non-Agricultural)." Headclerks with which we are concerned in this writ petition are obviously not covered either by section 10 or by statute 6 quoted above, and therefore, they cannot be considered as the officers of the University and if that be so, there could be no statute which would provide for "appointment, powers and duties" of the employees like the headclerks. 36. Shri Sood contended on behalf of the petitioners that the expression "officers of the University" is cot used in the statutory sense as found in section 10 and statute 6, but is loosely used to mean the employees of the University. We do not find any point in this contention because unless the context otherwise requires the expression used in a particular enactment should ordinarily be treated as carrying the same meaning throughout the Act. 37. The residuary clause (j) of section 38 also does not empower the Government to frame the statute like the Statute no. 38 because according to this clause (j) the First Statutes can be framed by the Government on all matters which, by the Act are to be provided by the Statutes. 37. The residuary clause (j) of section 38 also does not empower the Government to frame the statute like the Statute no. 38 because according to this clause (j) the First Statutes can be framed by the Government on all matters which, by the Act are to be provided by the Statutes. So, unless it is shown that the conditions of the service of transferred Government employees was a matter which could be provided by the statute under the provisions of the Act, there was no power with the Government to frame the statute 38. 38. We invited the learned Advocate of the petitioners to point out to us any of the clauses of section 38 under which statute 38 could have been enacted by the Government. He pointed out to clause (a) of section 38 which enables the Government to frame First Statutes regarding "constitution, powers and duties" of various authorities and other bodies of the University. It was contended that Agricultural Complex is one of the bodies of the University and since statute 38 is with regard to conditions of service of the employees, who were attached to the Agricultural Complex, statute 38 could have been framed by the Government under clause (a) of section 38. This contention is also not acceptable because clause (a) empowers the Government to frame a statute regarding the constitution, powers and duties of a body of the University. It cannot be said that conditions of service of the employees serving in a body of the University amount to a provision regarding constitution, powers and duties of the body. 39. We are, therefore, of the option that statute 38 could not have been framed by the Government under the powers which were delegated to it under section 38 of the Act, and if there be so, statute 38 has no statutory force. It would non the less have the force of a prescription which provides for guiding principles and, therefore, the Government was bound by these guiding principles in settling the terms and other conditions of service of those government servants who were transferred to the University. It would non the less have the force of a prescription which provides for guiding principles and, therefore, the Government was bound by these guiding principles in settling the terms and other conditions of service of those government servants who were transferred to the University. In other words, though the Government and the University were bound to integrate the services of the employees referred to in statute 38 only in accordance with the principles stated therein, they were not mechanically bound to take the services of only those Government employees who were posted in the two types of institutions mentioned in clause (2). 40. Yet there is another aspect which would justify the transfer of any Government employee working in the Department of Agriculture irrespective of his actual posting at the relevant time. As already noted above the employees of Agriculture Department belonged to a joint and common-cadre and were, therefore, liable to be posted at any place in any institution managed and controlled by the Agriculture Department. Therefore, if an employee happened to be posted in the year 1971 or 1972 at Agricultural College, Solan or at any other research institute, managed by the Agriculture Department, that was merely a fortuitious circumstance and hence it could not be said that he, in preference of the one who was posted elsewhere, should have been transferred to the University, if that was done, the very purpose of having a joint and common cadre would have been frustrated. In fact, this was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court while interpreting clause (2) of statute 3S in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh and others, (1973) l SLK 1112. In that case the concerned employees of the Agriculture Department were actually posted and serving at the Regional Fruit Research Station Mashobra, which was one of the research stations forming part of the Agriculture Department of the Government. On the formation of the University their services were transferred to the University pursuant to clause (11 of statute 38. The transfer was presumably made on the footing that at that time they were posted at the institute at Mashobra. They objected to this transfer and the above judgment recorded by the Division Bench shows that the said Bench was of the opinion that those employees were not persons specifically appointed to the post held by them. The transfer was presumably made on the footing that at that time they were posted at the institute at Mashobra. They objected to this transfer and the above judgment recorded by the Division Bench shows that the said Bench was of the opinion that those employees were not persons specifically appointed to the post held by them. The Division Bench further observed that when a Government servant is specifically recruited to a post and the post is abolished he cannot complain of the violation of any constitutional right, but it is a different matter where a Government servant is a member of the service which includes other employees. In that event, observed the Division Bench, the abolition of the post does not result automatically in the termination of the incumbents services and he is entitled to continue in the Government service as a member of the service because some members of the service junior to him would be required to go. This decision is based on the principle that when there is a common cadre of the whole service then it cannot be said that only the person who happened to be discharging his duties at a particular place should be transferred. In view of this decision all the members belonging to the common cadre were affected on certain posts being found surplus, and it is for this reason that the Government made inquiry from all the members of this cadre to know whether they were ready to exercise their option to join the services of the University or not. 41. In this connection if a reference is made to the resolution of the Executive Council dated 111-1974 found at Annexure K’ as well as the earlier resolution of the joint meeting of the representatives of the Government and the University held on 29-3-1971 found at Annexure R-4, and the Governments letter dated 23-0-1971. It become very clear that the Government as well as the University understood that the whole cadre of the relevant service in the Agriculture Department was affected and, therefore, the contemplated transfers were to be made from all the members of that cadre. Annexure R-4 as well as Annexure K show that the University also contteruplated the transfer of the any of the employees of the Agriculture Department. Annexure R-4 as well as Annexure K show that the University also contteruplated the transfer of the any of the employees of the Agriculture Department. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the basic understanding between the Government and the University was that any member of this common cadre was liable to be transferred to the University. 42. The above position, no doubt, would affect the seniority of the petitioners because some of the old employees of the Government have been transferred to the University. However, the question is whether the petitioners have got any locus standi to make a grievance either against the allocation of the services of respondents nos. 9 to 12 or against the terms and conditions on which their services have been agreed to be allocated to and integrated m the University. 43. The consideration of this question involves some basic postulates regarding the conditions of service of a public servant serving either the Government or a public institution like the University. One such basic postulate is that while the service of a public servant has its origin in contract, after he actually becomes a member of public service the original terms of service recede in the back ground as he acquires the status which happens to be regulated by exigencies of administration, which in their term, are guided principally by public interest and not by the conditions prevailed when he entered into the service. This legal position of a Government servant or public servant is best expounded in Roshan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889. This legal position of a Government servant or public servant is best expounded in Roshan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889. In that case the employees of Railway Department made a grievance that the terms of their service contract could not have been unilaterally changed by the Department to their disadvantage Dealing with this contention the Supreme Court made the following observations which are very pertinent to the facts of this case:— "We pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that there was a contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade D and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board, It was said that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25, 1958, Annexure ‘B’ laid down that promotion to Grade C from Grade D was to be based on seniority-cum-suitability and this condition of service was contractual and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no warrant for this argument. It is true that the origin of the Government service is contractual. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be named and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emoluments of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 imposes constitutional restrictions upon the - power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between the master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between the master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned." 44. It is in the light of this legally position that we should approach and appreciate the dispute raised by the petitioners in this case. While doing so, it would be proper to recall the circumstances and conditions under which the Himachal Pradesh University was formed and the petitioners could secure their employment in this University. As explained by the Government in its letter Annexure R-l, the Government employees were transferred to the University under extraordinary circumstances. The University could not have seen the light of the day had the Government not financed it with funds and grants-in-aid, and its agricultural complex would not have come into existence had the Government not transferred its own agricultural institutions to it. It was on account of this transfer of these institutions that certain posts became surplus with the Government. It was, therefore, the duty of the Government to see to it that its own employees who became surplus did not suffer in any manner. On the other hand, the University which had yet to make a start was in obvious need of the staff which was trained in handling administrative problems. Such a staff was available with the Government. Thus this was not the case of a pure abolition of posts where the surplus staff could not be accommodated anywhere else. Here was, however, the case where simultaneously with the abolition of posts at one place there was creation of equal number of posts elsewhere consequent upon the very same abolition. The University was, therefore, quite justified in its belief that it was the case of a "virtual transfer" of the concerned Government employees to the University, (vide Annexure R-7). It is thus clear that the terms and conditions under which the respondent nos. The University was, therefore, quite justified in its belief that it was the case of a "virtual transfer" of the concerned Government employees to the University, (vide Annexure R-7). It is thus clear that the terms and conditions under which the respondent nos. 9 to 12 and other Government employees were transferred to the University constitute the very basis for the formulation of the University itself and that the very employment of the petitioners in the University services owed its existence to these terms and conditions against which they are now making a grievance. The petitioners have obviously entered into the employment of the University subject to this basic understanding that the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees would be transferred to the University under statute 38 (2) were likely to affect their service conditions. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to make any grievance against these terms and conditions. 45. Our attention was drawn at the bar to several decisions which have been based on the above stated principle. One is the Supreme Court decision in Paresh Chandra v. Controller of Stores, (1971) 2 SLR 68. Facts of that case show that one of the independed departments of Railway was closed and the employees of that department were transferred to another department. The employees of the department to which they were transferred were aggrieved because the transferred employees brought with them their own seniority in the original department where they were serving. It was an admitted fact that the cadre to which the transferred employees belonged was totally independent and separate from the cadre to which the employees of the department to which they were transferred belonged. But the Supreme Court held that the employees who were transferred could bring with them their seniority in the original department. Another decision of the Supreme Court which is mostly on all the fours with the facts of the present case is found in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Palwal, (1976) 2 SLR 774. But the Supreme Court held that the employees who were transferred could bring with them their seniority in the original department. Another decision of the Supreme Court which is mostly on all the fours with the facts of the present case is found in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Palwal, (1976) 2 SLR 774. The facts of that case show that the Reserve Bank of India had integrated different cadres into one cadre as a matter of policy, but while doing so it was provided that the employees of non-clerical cadre who were fitted into clerical cadre shall carry their seniority by permitting them to bring with them their non-clerical service only upto 7-5-1973. This obviously affected the seniority of some of the members of the clerical cadre. The employees so affected then approached the Court and when the matter came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is found to have observed as under :— "Now, when the employees from non-clerical cadres are admitted in the clerical cadre, some rule would have to be made for determining their seniority vis-a-vis those in the clerical cadre. They would have to be fitted into the clerical cadre and for that purpose, some rule would have to be devised for determining how they shall rank in seniority. The Combined Seniority Scheme adopted the rule that for determining the seniority of non-clerical staff who exercised the option and were admitted in the clerical cadre, one-third of their total non-clerical service until 7th May, 1972 or the date of acquiring qualification" should be taken into account. This was the manner in which the Combined Seniority Scheme sought to bring about integration of non-clerical with clerical service in the order several departments of the Bank." On these facts the Supreme Court first considered whether any constitutional principle of equality in bringing about the integration of non-clerical service with clerical service was violated by the Reserve Bank. Dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed that Article 16 and a fortiori also Article 14 did permit the creation of different cadres of Government service, and if that be so, equally these two articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. Dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed that Article 16 and a fortiori also Article 14 did permit the creation of different cadres of Government service, and if that be so, equally these two articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. The Supreme Court further observed that it is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres of one integrated cadre in its service. That is purely a matter of policy. Speaking about the question regarding the rule of seniority adopted by the combined seniority scheme of the Bank, the Supreme Court observed that there could be no doubt that it was open to the State to lay down any rule which it thought proper for determining seniority in service, and it was not competent to the Court to strike down such rule on the ground that in its opinion another rule would have been better and more appropriate. According to the Supreme Court the only inquiry which the Court could make in such a case was whether the rule laid down by the State was arbitrary and irrational so that it resulted in inequality of opportunity. On the question of the seniority of the existing cadre being, disturbed by integrating the services of a separate cadre the Supreme Court has observed that there was no question of any existing seciority being disturbed by the change in the rule of seniority because the problem was of fitting into the clerical cadre employees coming from non-clerical cadres and for that purpose a new rule was required to be made which would determine the seniority of these new entrants vis-a-vis those already in the clerical cadre. Such a rule, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, did not affect seniority. This decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in S1. D. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, (1977) 2 SLR 505 where also the same question was involved. 46. We find that the Mysore High Court has also taken the similar view in H. S. Shivalingaih v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 SLR 3.7. This decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in S1. D. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, (1977) 2 SLR 505 where also the same question was involved. 46. We find that the Mysore High Court has also taken the similar view in H. S. Shivalingaih v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 SLR 3.7. Facts of that case show that in the year 1962 the Government took a policy decision to permit inter-changeability in the cadre of typist and junior Assistants with a view to give some relief to some persons in the lowest rank of class III posts, While doing so it was provided that seniority in the changed cadre would be fixed with reverence to the date of entry in the original cadre which meant that the entire length of service would be accounted for the purpose of seniority. The High Court held that the rule permitting the Government servants to change cadre and allowing service in the previous cadre to account for the seniority was not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 47. In Khurshid Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Mys 346 the same view was taken by the Mysore High Court in case of the employees belonging to a Private Trust who were treated as Government servants. The High Court held that if the employees of the Trust Fund became Government servants when the activity of that Trust Fund was taken over by he Government, they commenced to hold the posts in Government service which they held in that Trust Fund with ail their attributes. In the opinion of the High Court the meaning of the word "shall be treated as Government servants" occurring in the Government order meant that the post held by these employees of the Trust Fund should be regarded as Governmental post for all purposes. 48. It was contended by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that in most of the above referred cases the integration of service^ and the consequential change in seniority were the result of change in service rules, but here, in the case before us, the same has been the result of an understanding between the two employers. 48. It was contended by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that in most of the above referred cases the integration of service^ and the consequential change in seniority were the result of change in service rules, but here, in the case before us, the same has been the result of an understanding between the two employers. This distinction is, in our opinion, of no help to the petitioners because the question involved is not the one of the method to be adopted in fixing seniority, but the question is whether the petitioners employer, namely, the University, had legal authority to agree to the allocation of services of others on certain terms and conditions even if these terms and conditions would eventually prove to be disadvantageous to the petitioners. This question is resolved in the above referred decisions on the principle that it is an inherent right of an employer in public service to integrate services of different cadres and to work upon some reasonable principles of seniority of the services so integrated. The reasonableness of such principles would obviously depend upon the peculiar exigencies of a given situation Dictates of policy, and needs of administration, would necessarily play a dominent role in the formulation of this principle, and hence, unless the Court finds that the principles in question are determined quite arbitrarily and on wholly irrelevant grounds, it would not be justified to interfere in those formulations. In such circumstances no class of existing employees has any locus standi to challenge these principles even if they are likely to affect them adversely because their service conditions are always subject to the larger demands of public interest and administrative efficiency of the institution which they serve. 49. The next contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioners which arises to be considered is whether in view of the fact that the seniority of the Government employees transferred to the University is to be reckoned from the past date, it can be said that their appointments have been retrospectively made. The contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioners was that the effect of counting the past services of these employees is as if they were appointed retrospectively. The contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioners was that the effect of counting the past services of these employees is as if they were appointed retrospectively. In support of his contention that no such retrospective appointments could be made, reliance was placed on the Patna decision of Shyam Dayal v. State of Bihar, (1916) I SLR 407 and Himachal Pradesh decision in Inder Jit Singh Kang v. Union of India etc., ILR 1975 (HP) 161. 50. It is true that in Income Tax Officer v. M. G. Ponnooss, AIR 1970 SC 385 the Supreme Court has held that where from the language employed in statutory provision nothing is found either in express terms or by necessary implication to how that the delegated authority was authorised to make rule or regulation with retrospective effect no rule or regulation having retrospective effect can be framed by such an authority. On the basis of this "principle" it would follow that even retrospective appointments to public service cannot be made as held in the above referred Patna and Himachal Pradesh cases. But in this case it is not possible to say that the appointments of the Government employees in question have been retrospectively made. What is done by the University and the Government is merely to take into account the past services of transferred employees in order to safeguard their rights which had accrued till the date of their transfer. Under the circum stances, the decisions cited on this point have got no relevancy. 51. It was then contended that even if it is believed that all the employees of the Agriculture Department were liable to be considered for transfer because their cadre was joint and common, the Government should have followed the principle of last come first go at the time of transferring its employees to the University. So far as this contention is concerned, it should first be noted that there is nothing positive to show from the record of the case that this principle was not followed. It is no doubt true that the respondents no. y to 12 were senior to some others working in the Agriculture Department but we do not know who were other persons who were transferred to the University. That apart, the principle of last come first go is a principle of prudence and equity but not a principle having any statutory force. y to 12 were senior to some others working in the Agriculture Department but we do not know who were other persons who were transferred to the University. That apart, the principle of last come first go is a principle of prudence and equity but not a principle having any statutory force. Therefore, if this principle is not rigidly followed on account of some special circumstances, it would not result in any illegality. 52. The last point which was urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the second seniority list found at Annexure ‘M did not take into account that the employees who were confirmed should get seniority over those who were not confirmed. This seniority list is tentative, but it also follows the principle of taking into account the past services of the Government employees transferred to the University. On this point it cannot be challenged and subject to this point it is liable to be corrected. 53. In the result, therefore, we find that there is no force in this writ petition. We, therefore, discharge the rule. In view of the peculiar circum stances of the case we pass no order as to costs.