JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petition No. 1976/1988 has been filed by some of the employees of University of Rajasthan, who have chosen to form Rajasthan University Karamchari Sangharsh Samiti, in its meeting held on June 25, 1988, through its convener Ashok Verma. The names of the various employees have been mentioned in the annexed Schedule to the petition. It has been stated that it will be highly inconvenient to file separate petition on behalf of the each of the employee mentioned in the schedule, and. therefore, it is prayed that the petition may be entertained in the form it has been filed. Another petition has been filed by petitioner Upendra Kumar (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1983/1988), in which also the same matter has been agitated. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by one order. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Government of Rajasthan has re-structured respondent Rajasthan University and new Universities have been established known as Ajmer University and Kota Open University by enactments made in this behalf. It is mentioned in the petitions that Govt. of Rajasthan promulgated University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1987), which was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated July 23, l987. By section 4 of this Ordinance Section 45 has been amended and section 45-A has been inserted into the University of Rajasthan Act. This Ordinance has since been replaced by the University (Amendment) Act. It is further stated that by order dated November 25, 1987 (Annexure-1), certain incentives were offered to such of the employees who chose to accept their transfer voluntarily to Ajmer University and/or Kota Open University. It is also stated that University of Ajmer also invited applications for various posts by way of advertisement for direct recruitment. Some of the employees mentioned in the schedule applied in response to the above advertisement but were not called to appear in the written test conducted by the University of Ajmer. By a notification dated March 10, 1988 applications from the employees of University of Rajasthan were invited from all those holding the posts named in the said notification to give options for their appointment by transfer in the above mentioned two Universities and Rajasthan-Agriculture University, Bikaner. This notification is Annexure-2. By a notification dated March 10, 1988 applications from the employees of University of Rajasthan were invited from all those holding the posts named in the said notification to give options for their appointment by transfer in the above mentioned two Universities and Rajasthan-Agriculture University, Bikaner. This notification is Annexure-2. It is further mentioned that by a communication dated March 23, 1988, which was regarding the subject matter of bifurcation of posts between Rajasthan University, Ajmer University and Kota Open University, approval of Government for bifurcation, creation of posts as per Appendix enclosed therewith was also conveyed. This shows that 459 posts were purported' to have been abolished. This communication is marked as Annexure 3. University of Rajasthan issued another Notification dated May 16, 1988. In pursuance of the letters dated March 23, 1988, April 12, 1988 and April 18/19, 1988, from the Special Secretary, Education (Group IV) Department, by which details of the posts which have been abolished numbering 459 were given. The employees were also advised to give their option for absorption in Ajmer Kota and Bikaner Universities as per the conditions approved by the State Government at the earliest, to avoid retrenchment. Thereafter another Notification dated June 9, 1988, was issued by the University of Rajasthan, in which it was mentioned that 66 persons were absorbed in Ajmer and 15 in Kota Open University. This communication further states that all employees were advised to give their option otherwise the University will be left with no alternative but to retrench the employees. This document is marked Annexure-5. Along with this Notification a provisional seniority list of the employees was also attached. Thereafter an order dated June 22, 1988 was issued by the University of Rajasthan, whereby the employees were required to exercise their options finally by 1.00 p. m. of 25th June 1988. According to the petitioner, this Notification came to his knowledge only on June 25, 1988. Knowledge that this was not served upon the employees is apparent from the endorsement contained in the notification itself. This notification is marked as Annexure-6. It is further stated soon after Government decided to re-structure the University of Rajasthan, a meeting of about 30 persons was called by notification dated June 17, 1987, marked as Annexure-8. Knowledge that this was not served upon the employees is apparent from the endorsement contained in the notification itself. This notification is marked as Annexure-6. It is further stated soon after Government decided to re-structure the University of Rajasthan, a meeting of about 30 persons was called by notification dated June 17, 1987, marked as Annexure-8. The contention of Shri Mridul and Shri Dangi learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that since the seniority list of the employees has not been finalised and the names of the employees likely to be declared surplus, have not been declared, therefore, the University of Rajasthan cannot take any steps for transferring the employees, the option of which was given only on June 22, 1988. It is further pointed out that principle of 'last come first go' is not observed by the respondent university and it is indulging in picking and choosing the transfer of employees at its own choice. It is further contended that it was necessary for the respondent University to have indicated the names of the persons who are likely to be declared surplus It is also contended that the order of the State Government dated March 23, 1988 (Annexure-3) is illegal as it has chosen to abolish 459 posts. It is contended that such power does not vest in the respondent State of Rajasthan to abolish the posts in the University. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that Notification dated May 16, 1988 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent University, states that the posts mentioned there in numbering 459 are abolished in pursuance of the orders of State Government. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent-University is abdicating its discretion to the State Government and has not exercised its mind independently to its own needs and it mechanically followed what has been stated in the Notification of the State Government. It is further pointed out that even though 459 posts were said to be abolished in the respondent University it will appear from the Notification dated June 9, 1988 issued by the respondent-University itself that only 296 posts have have declared to be surplus. It is therefore, pointed out that even though he State Government abolished 459 posts, the respondent-University declared only 287 posts as surplus, as on May 31, 1988. It is therefore, pointed out that even though he State Government abolished 459 posts, the respondent-University declared only 287 posts as surplus, as on May 31, 1988. It is, therefore, pointed out that respondent - University is picking and choosing at its own choice and has absorbed some of the employees holding posts which were earlier abolished as mentioned above. It is further stated that assuming that this is a case of retrenchment of employees in service even this has also to be done in accordance with law and the respondent-University cannot pick and choose at its own choice and has to do so on the principle of last come first go after the seniority list has been finally determined. It is also contended that even in the matter of transfer it is necessary for the respondent University that it is the junior most person who being surplus is transferred from the respondent-University and not the senior one. It is, therefore, pointed out that abolition of posts/declaring persons surplus is a premature exercise till the seniority list is finally determined by the respondent- University. It is also pointed out that employees were given hardly any time by Notification dated June 22, 1988 by which they were asked to give options latest by 1.00 p.m. of June 25, 1988 and that they will not be paid their salaries after June 30, 1988. 3. After the contentions were made by Shri M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the University and Shri M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan, learned counsel for the petitioners made further submissions which were initially not mentioned in the petitions, may also be mentioned here. It was contended by both the learned counsel for the petitioners that an order under section 45 of the University of Rajasthan Act, as amended, cannot be availed for the purpose of doing anything in other Universities which are autonomous bodies and are governed by separate enactments. It is also contended that Section 45 of the University of Rajasthan Act, cannot be availed for granting any posts in University other than University of Rajasthan, it is also pointed out that no difficulty has arisen on account of which an order to be passed in the terms of section 45 of the Act may be necessary. It is also contended that Section 45 of the University of Rajasthan Act, cannot be availed for granting any posts in University other than University of Rajasthan, it is also pointed out that no difficulty has arisen on account of which an order to be passed in the terms of section 45 of the Act may be necessary. It is, therefore, prayed by the petitioners that respondent - University must be restrained from retrenching the employees named in the schedule attached with the petition /transferring the petitioners to the other Universities and that order dated March 23, 1987 (Annexure-3), issued by the respondent State and notification dated May 16, 1988 (Annexure-4), issued by respondent University as also order dated June 9, 1988 may be declared to be invalid and struck down and respondents be restrained from effecting the same. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the respondent-University that the petitioner Ashok Kumar is not competent to file the writ petition on behalf of Karmchari Sangharsh Samiti as this seems to be a group of employees collected for adhoc purposes on the last day fixed for exercising the option i. e. June 25, 1988. It is also pointed out that minutes of meeting authorising Ashok Verma to file a petition has also not been placed on record. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that such an ad hoc body has no right to file the writ petition as such ad hoc body has no legal entity and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed on this ground. 5. The learned counsel further contends that first of all options were invited as back as on December 3, 1987, a copy of which has been filed and marked as Ex. 2/1. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that Ajmer University Act. 1987 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on November 7, 1987 and Kota Open University Act, 1987 was also published in Rajasthan Gazette on November 7, 1987. It is further contended that certain applications were invited by Ajmer University for making recruitment against plan posts whereas the employees who will be transferred from this University on the basis of transfer will be sent against the posts transferred from the respondent University and created in Kota & Ajmer University. It is further contended that certain applications were invited by Ajmer University for making recruitment against plan posts whereas the employees who will be transferred from this University on the basis of transfer will be sent against the posts transferred from the respondent University and created in Kota & Ajmer University. A copy of the order dated April 12, 1988 regarding the bifurcation of posts between Rajasthan University and Ajmer and Kota Open University has been filed and marked as Ex. R 2/3. It is, therefore, pointed out that fresh appointments made by Ajmer University have nothing to do with the case of absorption of those employers of respondent-University, who are to be transferred in the newly created University on the basis of option. It is also contended that provisional seniority lists of various cadre were prepared and the same were enclosed with the notification dated June 9, 1988. so that the same be available to those who were interested to receive it. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that 287 posts have been already declared surplus on May 31, 1988. The number of surplus employees of course has to be different than the actual number of posts declared to be surplus because certain posts were lying vacant and therefore the employees holding equivalent posts were retained against such equivalent vacant posts, as a temporary measure. Apart from this, certain employees had already been transferred and absorbed in the newly created Universities and some had been recruited in the direct recruitment held by the Universities. Thus number was reduced to 287 as against 459. It is also stated that the respondent University has no funds to pay in respect of abolished posts after June 30, 1988, therefore, the matter had to be decided promptly. It is also contended that the petitioner deliberately did not take any steps since December 1987, regarding exercising the options till June 25, 1988. It is further pointed out that Annexure-8 date June 17, 1987 and annexure dated February 23, 1988 create no impediment in the petitioner's way regarding exercising his option and have no relevancy with the matters agitated in the petitions. It is contended by the learned counsel that the abolition of the posts is the direct result of the approval of the Government for bifurcation/creation of posts in Ajmer and Kota Universities. It is contended by the learned counsel that the abolition of the posts is the direct result of the approval of the Government for bifurcation/creation of posts in Ajmer and Kota Universities. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there was consultation between the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University and the Education Secretary from time to time before the orders regarding abolition of the posts and transfer were issued. It is also pointed out that it was only as a result of these consultations that the Vice-Chancellor nominated his representatives for attending the meetings held jointly with the representatives of the State Govt. It is further contended that since the University of Rajasthan has been bifurcated and new two Universities created, therefore, the State Government is facing difficulty regarding proper creation of posts in various Universities and therefore, the State Govt. is empowered to use the powers provided under section 45 of the University of Rajasthan Act. It is also pointed out that the financial burden is borne by the State Government even though the University is totally independent so far as the academic sphere is concerned. It is also pointed out that no prejudice is caused to the employees if the posts are abolished from the respondent University and they are transferred to other Universities which will cause them no lots so far as their emoluments are concerned. It is, therefore, contended that the option has been taken from the employees in their own interest so that the respondent University can act on their behalf to protect their interest while they are transferred to the Universities. It is also stated that the policy of last come first go is strictly observed and question of making any pick and choose by the respondent University does not arise. It is also submitted that so far no retrenchment whatsoever has been done and the employees have been asked to give options only with a view to avoid any harassment and protect their interest in service. 6. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has also raised similar preliminary objection as raised by the respondent University. It is contended by the learned counsel that the postings of surplus staff of one University in another University has been done by the University itself. 6. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has also raised similar preliminary objection as raised by the respondent University. It is contended by the learned counsel that the postings of surplus staff of one University in another University has been done by the University itself. However, in exercise of the powers vested in the State Government under section 45 of the Act on the request and in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor orders of abolition of posts and creation of posts were issued by the State Government. It is also submitted that the creation and abolition of posts is integral process of the constitution of University. It is further submitted that Government of Rajasthan abolished the posts with concurrence of Finance Department, after consultation/and request of the Vice-Chancellor of the Rajasthan University. It is pointed out that in this process none will be left without job neither the service conditions of any employee in the changed set up will be altered to the disadvantage of any employee. It is also contended that the process of transfer of the staff had to be expedited in view of the start of new academic sessions in the newly set up Universities. It is also contended that the writ petition is pre-mature in as much as none of the employees have been retrenched to give any cause for filing this petition. It is pointed out with regard to notification dated 17.6.1987 that the functionaries representatives, of public, students, employees, education and Universities were invited in deliberation regarding re-constitution of Rajasthan University with a view to improve the system and educational-standards in the State of Rajasthan. A rejoicer to the reply filed by the respondents was also filed after the arguments were heard partly. Apart from that an application dated July 26, 1988 has been also filed by the petitioners in which it has been pointed out that State Government has promulgated an ordinance No. 5/88 dated July 21, 1988 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extra-Ordinary dated July 22, 1988 by which the territorial-jurisdiction of Rajasthan University has been enlarged and all the colleges within the Municipal limits of Jaipur have been affiliated with the respondent-University. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners will increase the work load of respondents University particularly in respect of conducting examination. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners will increase the work load of respondents University particularly in respect of conducting examination. A provision has also been made in the said ordinance that other colleges can also be added and brought within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent-University. 7. We have heard at length the parties, gone through the pleadings, affidavits and other documents placed on record. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is concerned, in spite of substance in the same, we deem it proper to hear the petition in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the same. So far as the objective of the petitioners that the transfer of services/ retrenchment cannot be effected unless the seniority list of employees is finalised, has no force as a provisional seniority list has been published and it is not necessary that the respondent-University may be required to wait till the final seniority-list is published. Moreover, it has been made abundantly clear during the course of arguments and the replies filed on behalf of he respondents that none of the transferred employees shall suffer in any respect and that their interests have been fully protected so far as their emoluments are concerned. It has been further made clear that as far as possible none of the employees is to be retrenched and left without job as the number of the posts abolished were simultaneously created in other Universities The respondent University has also made clear that while transferring the employees the principle of last come first go will be observed. The contention of the petitioners that the option should have been obtained only from such employees who were likely to be transferred and not from all the employees of the respondent-University is devoid of any force. Apart from those who may have to be declared surplus in view of the principle of last come first go, if there are any other employees who are willing to go in the newly created Universities, it shall be only to the advantage of those who even though junior in service and likely to be transferred will have chance to continue their services in the respondent University at Jaipur. The contention of the petitioners that in the first instance it was declared that 459 posts were to be abolished and subsequently the number has been reduced to 287 which according to petitioners show that the respondent University is picking and choosing from the employees for effecting transfers has also no merit. The fact that the number of the posts to be abolished has been reduced to 287 shows that the respondent University is not keen to abolish the posts of greater number, then it is necessary keeping in view the requirements of the newly opened Universities. The respondents have explained that number of seats to be abolished, has been reduced as several employees have been transferred by absorption on the basis of objection (sic absorption) /selection by direct recruitment/adjustment against suitable, equivalent, vacant posts etc. It is evidently to the advantage of the employees, if the respondent-University reduces the number of the posts to be abolished. The next objection raised by the petitioners in the re-joinder is that powers under section 45 of the Act can be availed of by State for the purposes of doing anything in other Universities which are autonomous-bodies and are governed by separate laws made in respect of each of the newly established Universities. It is also contended that no consultation has been made with the Vice-Chancellor by the State Government as required under the provisions of section 45 of the Act. It was also submitted hat no difficulty has arisen in the University of Rajasthan to enable the State Government to use the powers provided under section 45 of the Act. 8. Section 45 of the Act, vide notification dated July 23, 1987 is as under :"REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES. 45. If any difficulty arises as to the first constitution or reconstitution of any Authority of the University after coming into force of this Act or otherwise in first giving effect to the provisions thereof and in giving effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 the Government, as occasion may require, may in consultation with the Vice - Chanceller, by order, do anything which appears to it necessary for the purpose of removing difficulty." 9. This section provides that State Government may use the power provided under section 45 to remove any difficulties that may arise on account of giving effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 in consultation with the Vice-.Chancellor if such an occasion may arise The State Government is thus empowered to order and do any thine which appears to it necessary for the purpose of removing such difficulty. With a view to improve the standards of education in the State of Rajasthan, University of Rajasthan was bifurcated and two new Universities already mentioned above were created. Therefore, it was necessary for the State Government to create new posts in accordance with the necessity of each newly created Universities for their proper functioning. At the same time the State Government and the respondent University are anxious to see that as far as possible none of the existing employees of the University of Rajasthan is retrenched and no adverse effect is caused to any of the employee on account of absorption/transfer in newly created Universities. The Vice-Chancellor Dr. R.P. Agarwal of' University of Rajasthan as also the then Secretary Shri Kumat of Department of Education, Government hive filed affidavits stating chat consultations were made amongst Government of Rajasthan and respondent University, as also Ajmer University and Kota Open University regarding options/bifurcation/creation abolition of posts between above Universities. The learned Additional Advocate General was asked to produce before the Court the relevant file to show that before the powers provided under section 45 of the Act were used by the State Government, there was effective consultation between State Government and the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University. From perusal of the file, it is evident that several meetings were held between the Secretary Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan. Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University and the representatives of the respondent University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor to devise ways and means regarding the absorption of the employees without causing any harm to pecuniary interest of the employees of the respondent University. Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University and the representatives of the respondent University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor to devise ways and means regarding the absorption of the employees without causing any harm to pecuniary interest of the employees of the respondent University. Letter dated May 14, 1987 written by Special Secretary (Administration), letter dated May 19, 1987 written by Registrar of the respondent University the Special Secretary Education; meeting held on June 25.1987 in which the nominees of the University of Rajasthan participated; meeting held on August 10, 1987 in which Vice-Chancellors of University of Rajasthan Ajmer University and Kota Open University participated; letter dated August 14, 1987 written by Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University to the Vice-Chancellor of University of Ajmer and Secretary, Education Department Government of Rajasthan. letter dated November 27, 1987 written by Special Secretary (Education) to Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University; letter dated November 9, 1987 written by Vice-Chancellor. University of Rajasthan to Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan amongst others letters on the file clearly show that there was effective consultation between State Government and Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University before the powers under section 45 of the Act were exercised. It may also be pointed out that since new Universities were established, it was responsibility of State Government to create enough posts to be filled in each University for its proper functioning as early as possible, with a view to see that the Universities start functioning effectively from the new academic session which starts in the month o1 July every year. It is true that each University is governed under separate enactment but in a peculiar situation when University of Rajasthan was bifurcated and new Universities were established none of the Vice - Chancellors of the Universities of its own could make effective orders for absorption of the employees from the University of Rajasthan who became surplus on account of the bifurcation, We are, therefore, of the opinion that a difficulty did arise which needed to be removed and the State Government rightly used its powers after consulting the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan under the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. 10. Section 45-A of the Act, reads as under: "45A. 10. Section 45-A of the Act, reads as under: "45A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the Chancellor may in order to give effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 in consultation with the State Government, make such orders, as are deemed necessary for the transfer of: (a) any officer, teacher, employees or servant, (b) any movable or immovable property or any rights or interest therein, (c) any fund, grant, contribution, donation, aid or benefaction received, accrued or promised. (d) any dues, liabilities or obligations incurred or lawfully subsisting in favour of or against the University; (e) any will, deed or other document containing request, gift or trust, from the University to any other University on such terms and conditions as may be determined in the orders." 11. A bare reading of this section will show that the Chancellor of the respondent University, with a view to give effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 in consultation with State Government can pass orders which may be necessary for the purpose of transfer of any Officer/ Teacher/employee or Servant etc. Therefore, evidently, the respondent University has made an effort by inviting options from its employees for transfer to newly established Universities only with a view to see that those who are willing to go, first be given the opportunity to do so without disturbing other employees. However, the Chancellor is empowered under section 45-A of the Act, to order the transfer of any employee of any of the newly created Universities as provided in the Act as it stands after amendment. Regarding the fact that the territorial jurisdiction of the University of Rajasthan has been extended by a fresh ordinance promulgated on July 21, 1988, it is evident that if the work in respondent University has increased, it is only expected that the number of posts may be decreased (sic) by the respondent University keeping in view the work load, the University has to handle. We, therefore, find no infringement of any legal right of the petitioners. The petitioners were given sufficient time to exercise their options from the month of December, 1987. However, in the circumstances, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to extend the time for giving options to the respondent University to 16th August, 1988. We, therefore, find no infringement of any legal right of the petitioners. The petitioners were given sufficient time to exercise their options from the month of December, 1987. However, in the circumstances, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to extend the time for giving options to the respondent University to 16th August, 1988. It is also directed that the University shall be liable in any case to make payment of the salary of the petitioners till the transfers are made. 12. In the result, we do not find any force in these petitions, which are dismissed without any order as to costs. 13. Per Hon'ble Mr. M.B. Sharma, J. - 13. I have gone through the order of my brother Israni, J. and I generally agree with the conclusions arrived at by him and with the result that the petitions be dismissed, but will like to contribute few paras of my own. 14. Basically two sections namely, section 45 and 45A of the University Act as amended by the Amendment Act will come up for consideration in this order. Let us read the aforesaid sections first. They read as under : "REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES" 45-If any difficulty arises as to the first constitution or reconstitution of any Authority of the University after coming into force of this Act or otherwise in first giving effect to the provisions thereof and in giving effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 the Government as occasion may require, may in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, by order, do anything which appears to it necessary for the purpose of removing difficulty." "45-A Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the Chancellor may, in order to give effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 in consultation with the State Government, make such orders, as are deemed necessary, for the transfer of: (a) any officer, teacher, employees or servant, (b) any movable, or immovable property or any rights or interest therein, (c) any fund, grant, contribution, donation, aid or benefaction received, accrued or promised. (d) any dues, liabilities or obligations incurred or lawfully subsisting in favour of or against the University, (e) any will, deed or other document containing request, gift or trust, from from the University to any other University on such terms and conditions as may be determined in the orders." 15. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first is that section 45 cannot be invoked into service, because no difficulty has arisen in giving effect to the provisions of the University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act. 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to 'as the Amendment Act') and if it be assumed though not accepted that section 45 applies, even then the order abolishing the posts is totally beyond the scope of section 45. The second contention is that the order has been made in hot haste without application of the mind inasmuch as even the final seniority list has not been published and without that options could not have been called from the employees. Mr. M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the University as well as Mr. M.I. Khan, Additional Advocate General for the State have contended that abolition of posts became necessary as a result of statutory changes and exercise to find out the work load in the Rajasthan University as a result of its curtailed territorial jurisdiction became necessary; difficulty therefore, did arise within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act, and, therefore the Government made the impugned order in consultation with the Vice- Chancellor. The order is valid. It is further contended that even Section 45-A is subject to Section 45 of the Amendment Act and if difficulty arises in giving effect t to the provisions of Section 45 A an order under Section 45 to remove those difficulties can be made by the Government in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, and it has been so made. They further contend that calling for options does not mean all those who give their options will be transferred and while considering the same care shall be taken that the principle of 'last come first go' shall be observed and this exercise is being done so that as far as possible despite the abolition of posts none will be left without a job. Lastly it is contended that the question as to who will go to the other Universities is premature and as and when that stage comes and any of the employees felt that he has not been treated fairly and reasonably and in his case the decision has been taken arbitrarily against the set norms, he may then agitate the matter by approaching this Court. Kota Open University was created under the Kota Open University Act, 1987 (for short the 'Kota Act') and University of Ajmer was created under the University of Ajmer Act, 1987 (for short the 'Ajmer Act'). As a result of the statutory changes restrict being the University because necessary and its territorial limits were curtailed. A necessary corollary was to find out the work load the biggest (illegible) so far as the abolition of posts is concerned was to fall and did fall in the examination section as a result of reduction of the number of examinees to a great extent. Under the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (for short the 'University Act') no doubt it is the function of the syndicate to appoint officers (other than the Chancellor and Deans of Faculties), subject to he provisions of the Act, and the statutes, but it can hardly be disputed that financial control of the Government is also pervasive. Thus in normal circumstances creation and abolition of posts will the powers of the University or any of its bodies but in extraordinary circumstances like the present the State Government can make and has powers to make an order to remove difficulties which have arisen in giving effect to the provisions of the Amendment Act. Section 5 of the University Act, before its substitution by Section 5 of the Amendment Act, extended the jurisdiction of the university throughout the territory of Rajasthan subject to the provisions of the Jodhpur University Act. 1962 and Rajasthan Agricultural University Act, 1962. But under the aforementioned substituted Section 5-its jurisdiction is exercisable in all the university departments at Jaipur, its constituent colleges, institutions and institutes all such colleges institutions and institutes in the State as provide instructions in various systems of medicine and the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur and the Engineering College, Kota. Its territorial jurisdiction has been further extended by an Ordinance promulgated on July 21, 1988. Its territorial jurisdiction has been further extended by an Ordinance promulgated on July 21, 1988. With the curtailment of the jurisdiction as aforesaid the number of staff cannot remain the same. Therefore, as aforesaid an order under section 45 of the University Act, as amended by the Amendment Act, has been rightly made and as said by brother Israni, J., in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor. The impugned order/orders are therefore, valid and within the scope of Section 45 of the University Act as amended by the Amendment Act. 16. Apart from what has been said above Section 45A of the University Act as amended by the Amendment Act is a Special provision. It starts with non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained" and it vests powers under clause (a) in the Chancellor also to transfer any officer, teacher employee or servant, if it becomes necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Amendment Act. But this power can be exercised by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. A necessary corollary of the curtailed jurisdiction of the university, may be rather shall be an exercise as to what staff is in excess of the needs of the University and who should be transferred from the University to any other University on such terms and conditions as may be determined in the orders. As this is to be done by the Chancellor in consultation with the Government, to be ready with the aforesaid exercise so as to be in a position to give its opinion as and when the Chancellor deems it necessary to exercise its power of transfer of any officer, teacher, employee or servant. Therefore the impugned orders in respect of abolition of posts can also be justified to enable the Chancellor to exercise his aforesaid powers. Merely because under the impugned orders as many posts have been abolished in the University have been created in the Kota Open University and University of Ajmer will not make any difference. The impugned order so far as abolition of posts in the University is concerned is severable from the creation of posts in the other two Universities. In my opinion therefore, the impugned order about abolition of posts can also be justified as a preliminary exercise by the Government in order to be ready for consultation by the Chancellor for transfer of officers etc. In my opinion therefore, the impugned order about abolition of posts can also be justified as a preliminary exercise by the Government in order to be ready for consultation by the Chancellor for transfer of officers etc. as aforesaid when the Chancellor seeks the consolation of the Government to transfer any officer, employee or servant in order to give effect to the provisions of the Amendment Act. This and the other exercise as aforesaid was necessary. 17. So far as the act of calling options from the officers, employees or servants of the University by the University is concerned, none can have and should have any grievance. Options are being called in the interest of the aforesaid persons so that in case transfers are to be made, then on the principle of last come first go, on the basis of seniority, some persons may be transferred and the possibility of retrenchment of any of them may be excluded, and if necessary reduced to the minimum. In result the petitions are dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******