JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - These are 15 connected writ petitions arising similar questions of fact and law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents have made a statement before us that Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 31419 of 1990 be treated as leading cases for the purposes of relying on the facts for adjudicating the controversy raised in the present writ petitions. For disposal of these writ petitions, therefore, in accordance with the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties. only the facts of the aforesaid two writ petitions are being taken into consideration in this judgment and all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners Kumari Suneeta Kumari and Kumar Suman Sharma were selected by the G.B. Pant University as Research associates and appointment was provided accordingly in the Department of Family Researches. Annexure Ito the writ petition is the first appointment letter which clearly says that the two petitioners have been appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- in the project mentioned in column 5. Their appointment was purely temporary for a period up to 30-11-1990 with effect from the date of the taking over of the charge of duration of the project/ availability of the post, whichever is earlier and liable to termination at any time on one month's notice or pay in lieu of one month's notice from either side. The aforesaid appointment was thereafter extended beyond 30-11-1990 which is evident from Annexure 2 dated 28-11-1990. In the case of Km. Suneeta it was extended ti119-12- 1990 and in the case of Km. Suman Sharma it was extended up to 11-12-1990. The two petitioners in this writ petition have sought for the quashing of the order of the Vice- Chancellor dated 28-11-1990 with a prayer that the expiry date mentioned in the aforesaid letter be extended till the project continues. 3. In writ petition No. 31519 of 1990 Shivaji Singh and others, the petitioners were appointed as Extension Associates, firstly on ad hoc basis in the Directorate of Extension on a fixed salary mentioned against each with effect from the date of their joining for a period of six months by an order dated Nov. 30, 1988. 3. In writ petition No. 31519 of 1990 Shivaji Singh and others, the petitioners were appointed as Extension Associates, firstly on ad hoc basis in the Directorate of Extension on a fixed salary mentioned against each with effect from the date of their joining for a period of six months by an order dated Nov. 30, 1988. The appointment letter clearly stated that it can be terminated any time without any notice and without assigning reasons and further that the appointment letter will not give any right for re-appointment and that it shall stand terminated automatically without any further notice. As in the case of Km. Suneeta Kumar and another, by an order dated May 30, 1990 the term of the ad hoc appointment was extended but it was said in the appointment order that no extension beyond these dates will be allowed. As in the writ petition of Kumari Suneeta Kumari and another the prayer made is that the appointment should enure till the project lasts and not till the period which has been mentioned in the letter of the Vice- Chancellor. 4. The question which arises for determination in these writ petitions is as to whether in the case of Research Associates, Research Assistants and extension Associates the appointments which have been made by the Vice-Chancellor of the University will only last till the period which has been mentioned in the appointment letters or appointments will last till the project continues in the University. 5. At the admission stage the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court. 6. At the very outset it may be mentioned that as far as the University is concerned, it has relied on a resolution dated 30th April, 1990 of the Board of Management which is contained in Annexure CA 1 to the counter- affidavit. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Memorandum would show that in accordance with the resolution passed by the Board of Management and in supersession of all previous orders issued on the subject, the guidelines/rules regarding employment and conditions of service of the Research Associates/Teaching Associates/Extension Associates presently working or to be appointed in future in the University will come into force with immediate effect. 7. The memorandum provides for various things. 7. The memorandum provides for various things. We are, however, concerned mainly with clause (v) of the aforesaid memorandum which provides for duration of appointment and runs as follows : "V. Initially the Teaching/Research/ Extension Associates will be appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months only or for the duration of the vacancy/project, whichever is earlier. Further fresh appointment not exceeding 6 months every time, if necessary may he given by the Vice-Chancellor up to a maximum period of two years or for the extended period of the vacancy/project whichever is earlier only on receiving satisfactory report about performance and conduct of the incumbent on the campus from project leader/Dean/Head/Director concerned. (Emphasis provided). Research Associate (s) may be provided only in the Research projects where provision of the post(s) exist(s). No research and teaching and extension Associates shall be allowed to continue in service after the expiry of his term of original or extended appointment to a' maximum period of 2 years and it shall be the duty of the Head of Department/in charge of the project or Scheme concerned the Director Extension/the Director Research/ the Dean of the College, as the case may be, to relieve him on the expiry of the term of appointment........" In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the main object of appointments of Research Assistants/ Research Associates and Extension Associates is that the graduates of the G.B. Pant University and other graduates after having completed their degree and before they can be suitably appointed in the University or outside on a regular/temporary posts. may continue with their academic activities and assist in the research work of the various projects depending upon the nature and requirement of the project which may vary from time to time. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, relied on the employment notice which has been filed as Annexure S.R.A. 2 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on writ petition No. 31519 of 1990. The relevant part of the advertisement on which reliance has been placed says that the posts are purely temporary and initial appointment will be for a period of six months extended further for a period of six months (in instalments) or till regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier. The name of posts which have been given are subject-matter Specialist (Agricultural Economics in the scale of Rs. The name of posts which have been given are subject-matter Specialist (Agricultural Economics in the scale of Rs. 700-1500 and Extension Associates on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- Reliance has also been placed on Annexure SRA 3 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 31519 of 1990 and on that basis it has been said that Sri Niraj Sharma SMA (Agricultural Economics) has been given extension till the duration of the project as has been communicated to him vide letter No. IMS(A)/III/602 dated July 23, 1990. From these facts it has been argued that the employment notice as well as the letter of the Professor and Project Leader, department of Agricultural Economics clearly shows that the appointment was to remain till regular appointments have been made and further that Neeraj Sharma S.M.S. (Agricultural Economics) had already been granted extension till the duration of the project. On the basis of the aforesaid action of the University, the petitioners' counsel has urged that the appointment of all the petitioners should either be extended till the duration of the project or till regular appointment is made. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on a recent case of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. V.L. Chandra v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 685 . 9. As far as the case of Dr. V.L. Chandra (supra) is concerned, in our opinion the same has no application inasmuch as in the case before the Supreme Court the petitioners had been working or more than 10 to 15 years. It was also clear that the petitioners' had worked for a long period in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and had reached the age in life where they were not entitled to any other Government job. It is on those special facts that the Supreme Court had held that the petitioners be provided employment either as Researchers or in any other alternative employment until their inclusion in the team of researchers is considered. In the case before the Supreme Court, however, there was no such resolution of the Board as is in the present case which prescribes that the employment should not be more than two years. In the case before the Supreme Court, however, there was no such resolution of the Board as is in the present case which prescribes that the employment should not be more than two years. It would be seen that the Board of the University has taken care that the research Assistant/Research Associates and Extension Associates do not spend large number of years and become over age for employment on regular posts and work in the project only to continue their academic pursuits till they obtain regular employments. In our opinion, the resolution passed by the Board cannot be said to be arbitrary. Research projects are given to the University from year to year. Selected candidates come for the research projects. Petitioners were being appointed on consolidated salary. They are all fresh graduates from the University. It is in the fitness of things that till they get regular jobs they may be allowed to pursue some research work in the these projects so that their academic pursuit is not lost and they may usefully employ themselves during the period when they are searching for regular jobs. The consolidated meagre salary and short terms for which they are employed clearly indicates that they only assist in the research projects which are carried on by the Project Officer and his Associates and the University expects that the graduates at the maximum should work in these Research projects as Research Associates/ Research Assistants and Extension Associates for a maximum of two years and thereafter other fresh graduates from the University come and occupy those posts. In contradistinction to the present case in the case before the Supreme Court the petitioners were allowed to work for 10 to 15 years. It may at this stage be also mentioned that it has not been pointed out that the Board has not the power to pass the resolution and frame the rules and regulations for the purposes of making appointments on these posts. The University was, therefore, right in not extending the appointments of the petitioners beyond two years in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the Board contained in Annexure CA I to the writ petition of Km. Suneeta Kumari. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Resolution of the Board is arbitrary and has relied on Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1174 ). Suneeta Kumari. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Resolution of the Board is arbitrary and has relied on Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1174 ). Specific reliance has been placed on paragraphs 41 and 42 of the report. We are, however, of the opinion that the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) does not help the petitioners as in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court all the appointments of Government counsel in the districts had been terminated by one stroke of pen and it is in these circumstances that it was held that the action of the State Government was arbitrary. Herein our case, the appointment for a period of two years have been given in pursuance of a resolution of the Board. As has been stated above the resolution of the Board cannot be said to be arbitrary on the reasons which have been disclosed by the University in the counter affidavit. Providing of employment for a maximum period of two years on the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion is reasonable. 11. Reliance has been placed on a recent case of the Supreme Court reported in Jacob M. Puthumparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228 for the proposition that the petitioners' services should be regularised as they have continued for two years. We are unable to accept the aforesaid argument inasmuch as in Jacob's case there were specific statutory rules which provided for regularisation in the case incumbent has continued in employment for more than two years. In the instant case there is no such statutory rules. The contention raised, therefore, has no force. 12. It has then been urged that the resolution cannot operate retrospectively to the cases of the petitioners and cannot take away their vested rights. The precise argument raised is that at the time when the petitioners were first appointed there was no such resolution as is contained in Annexure CA-I. It has been argued that Annexure CA-1 came into force from April, 30, 1990. According to the petitioner's counsel all the petitioners had been appointed much before the date of the coming into force of the Memorandum i.e. they have been appointed prior to April 30, 1990. According to the petitioner's counsel all the petitioners had been appointed much before the date of the coming into force of the Memorandum i.e. they have been appointed prior to April 30, 1990. Learned counsel appearing for the University has, however, contended that even prior to coming into force of the memorandum dated 30th April, 1990, there were rules relating to the recruitment of research Assistant/Research Associates/Extension Associates which has been filed by the petitioners themselves in the writ petition of Sri Shivaji Singh and others as Annexure B. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that according to Rule 4 initially, the teaching/research/extension Associates will be appointed under orders of the Vice- Chancellor for a period of two years only or for the duration of the vacancies or projects whichever is earlier. If any extension is considered necessary after completion of this period, if any, be given by the Vice-Chancellor for one year instead of six months or for the extended period of the vacancy/project only after assessing the performance and conduct of the incumbent. There was also a further clause that no research/ teaching and Extension Associate shall be allowed to continue in service after the expiry of his term of original or extended appointment and it shall be the duty of the head of the Department/in charge of the Project or Scheme concerned the Director Extension/ the Director Research/ the Dean of the College as the case may be to relieve him on the expiry of the term of appointment. 13. From the aforesaid it is clear that from the very beginning the policy of the University was to keep the Teaching/Research/Extension Associates only for a maximum period of two years or till the project was there whichever was earlier. Prior to the passing of the resolution by the Board it was possible that an extension could be given for one year instead of six months or for the extended period of vacancy/project only after assessing the performance and conduct of the incumbent. However, now according to the resolution there is a limit which has been put and that is up to the maximum of two years or till the research lasts whichever is earlier. However, now according to the resolution there is a limit which has been put and that is up to the maximum of two years or till the research lasts whichever is earlier. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that either under the initial appointment or under the employment notice the petitioners can be offered appointment either till the regular appointment was made or till the project lasted. The employment notice on which reliance has been placed mentions of two posts one post is of S.M.S. and the other post is Research Associate. A bare perusal of the employment notice would show that the post of S.M.S. is in a grade while the appointment of Research Associate is on a consolidated salary. The rules relating to the procedure for recruitment of research/Teaching/Extension Associates which were prevalent from April 27, 1988 (Annexure B to the writ petition of Sri Shivaji Singh) clearly says that the period of two years was applicable only in the case of Research/Teaching/Extension Associates and was not applicable in the case of S.M.S. Even the Regulations which have not been framed are limited to three categories of appointments and not to S.M.S. The argument of the petitioner's counsel that Mr. Neeraj Sharma has been offered appointment till the project lasts thus cannot help him inasmuch as there is no restriction laid by the resolution of the Board or even earlier rules regarding the continuance of a person holding the post of S.M.S. beyond two years. The restriction is only applicable in the case of three posts of Teaching/Research/Extension Associates. The petitioners' appointment for six months, therefore, was in conformity with the resolution passed by the University. Each appointment was an ad hoc appointment and was limited to the period for which it was made. The argument raised by the petitioner that the provisions of the Resolution of the Board operated retrospectively is incorrect. The period of none of the appointments of the petitioners has been curtailed. The question in our opinion, does not arise on the view which we have taken in these cases. 14. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief that their appointments will continue either till the regular appointments are made or till the project lasts. All the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted are discharged. 14. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief that their appointments will continue either till the regular appointments are made or till the project lasts. All the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted are discharged. There shall be no order as to the costs.