JUDGMENT : Sudhir Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16-12-1992 whereby Respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the petitioner and” a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Research Officer in the department of post Harvest Technology or equivalent post. 2. In Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the University) there was a project known as “Promotion of “Agri- Electronic” in the department of Post Harvest Technology. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Research Officer in the said project vide appointment letter dated 8-2-1988. The appointment was for a period of two years or till such time of regularly selected Junior Officer joins, whichever, was earlier. Clause 3 of the appointment letter, however, made it clear that the appointment will automatically stand terminated without any formal notice after expiry of the above period of two years or duration of the project whichever was earlier. 3. After expiry of two years' period, the University authority terminated the services, of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of termination by means of writ petition No. 4061 of 1991 and this Court granted interim stay order dated 16-2-1990 whereby the Court permitted the petitioner to function till the project in which the petitioner was appointed, continued. The petitioner continued to function on the said post. The project, or which the petitioner was working, came to an end on 31st March, 1992. The petitioner was, however, permitted to work in the All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Post Harvest Technology Scheme in the department of Post Harvest Technology. On 16th December, 1992 Respondent no” 3 passed an order dispensing the services of the petitioner holding that as the project had come to an end on 31st March, 1992 the services of the petitioner stood terminated. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to appointment to another post in the “University even though the project, on which he was appointed, has come to an end. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 4 Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to appointment to another post in the “University even though the project, on which he was appointed, has come to an end. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. A Division Bench of this Court, in L.S. Tripathi v. Banaras Hindu University through its Vice Chancellor, Varanasi 1993 (3) AIEC 495, held that if an employee joins with open eyes in a project which from the term of appointment letter is to continue till the project lasts, he cannot claim any right to continue to work with the authority to any other post. The services could not go beyond the life of the project. 5. It was next contended that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service in other projects and schemes which are under the University Authorities. Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that for regularization certain necessary conditions must exist. The employee should be working, there should be permanent post, funds available, the employee should be qualified and there must be necessity according to the requirement of the work. The regularization in service is to be considered when an employee is working and before regularization the employer has to take into consideration several facts. In Zakir Hussain Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Dept. and Others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 15 , in which one of us Hon'ble R.A. Sharma, J.) was a member, the court laid down certain guidelines for regularization of service of an employee, The relevant guidelines as observed therein is quoted hereunder: The position, as now stands, is that for regularization of service of an ad hoc employee of a daily wager there must be-regular or permanent post and funds must also be available for payment of salary. That apart, he should, be qualified and there must be-the necessity, according, to requirement of the work, for retaining him and his work and conduct, in the post, must also be satisfactory. 6. That apart, he should, be qualified and there must be-the necessity, according, to requirement of the work, for retaining him and his work and conduct, in the post, must also be satisfactory. 6. He further placed reliance upon the decision in L.S. Tripathi's case (Supra) where it was contended before the Court that an employee, who is working in a project should be offered alternative job by the University which was repelled by this Court with the following observations: The question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he should be offered alternative job by the University, in our opinion, is not tenable. Those posts have to be filled in by the University in accordance with the provisions of the Statute by direct recruitment after inviting applications through advertisement. He cannot be absorbed on these posts' as absorbing the petitioner on those posts would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 7. It is true that if the post is vacant and the appointment to a particular post to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Statute, bye-laws, rules or regulations, that has to be filled in accordance with the manner laid down for appointment. A person, who had worked in a project, cannot claim any right to be appointed to another post except in accordance with the manner laid down for the appointment to such post. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that after the said project came to an end various employees, who were working in that project, were absorbed and given work in other schemes and projects which were under the control and budgetary allocation of the University. The petitioner has disclosed the names of six persons who were employed in the “Promotion of Agri-Electronics project”. They are as under: 1. Mr. N.P. Singh, Lab/Field Assistant. 2. Mr. Jangi Yadav, Lab/Field Assistant. 3. Mr. Virendra Singh, Driver. 4. Mr. Raghu, Driver. 5. Mr. Mani Ram, Lab-Attendant. 6. Mr. Luxmi Kant, Daily Paid Casual Labourer. After the project came to an and they were given appointment letter in other projects and schemes of the University with effect from 1-4-1992. The petitioner was also permitted to work as Junior Research Officer in another project of the University namely All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) in the department of Post Harvest Technology. After the project came to an and they were given appointment letter in other projects and schemes of the University with effect from 1-4-1992. The petitioner was also permitted to work as Junior Research Officer in another project of the University namely All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) in the department of Post Harvest Technology. The petitioner has alleged that there is a vacant post of Junior Research Officer in All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP). The petitioner was, in fact, permitted to work on the said post in this project and was paid salary for the said post for the period 1-4-1992 to 15-12-1992. The Respondents have not given any reason to dispense with services of the petitioner, while other employees who were working in the project 'Promotion of Agri-Electronics were absorbed and retained in other schemes and projects of the University. The action of the University is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. The petitioner has further relied upon Government Order dated 19-8-1992 and Para “Cha” of the said G.O. provides that the Vice-Chancellor will taken into consideration the fact that these persons who are employed in a project and after the project comes to an end there are other schemes and projects on which the staff who was working on the previous project could be employed on such new project and scheme. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has not shown that there is no vacancy in All India Coordinated Research Project on Post Harvest Technology Scheme in the department of Post Harvest Technology. It is also not denied that after the previous project had come to an end, the petitioner was in fact permitted to work in another project known as AICRP on post Harvest Technology. It is not stated that he is not qualified to the said post. The fund has already been made available for the said project, ft is clear from the order dated 16th December, 1992 that the petitioner was being paid salary for the period 1st April 1992 to 15 December 1992 from that department where he was working after the project “Promotion of Agri-Electronics” came to an end. It is not denied that other six persons, who were working in the project, have been absorbed in other projects and schemes under the University. It is not denied that other six persons, who were working in the project, have been absorbed in other projects and schemes under the University. There is no reason to excluded the petitioner from working in the project in which he was working after the previous project came to an end. The exclusion of the petitioner from working to the post on which he was working will be discriminatory and arbitrary. Where persons have been employed in a project and after such project comes to an end, the employees of previous projects are employed by the employer to the exclusion of some of employees who are qualified to the posts which are vacant and available without any justifiable reason amounts to illegal discrimination. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that those persons who have been employed in another schemes and projects were regularly selected candidates while the petitioner was not regularly selected candidate. He has not placed any such material before us. The appointment letters, which were issued to such other employees, are similar as that of the petitioner and in none of these appointment letters it is indicated that the employees have not been regularly selected. Moreover, the petitioner has annexed the letter of Head of department dated 27th July 1992 recommending that the petitioner may be absorbed on any of the two coordinated projects operating in the department viz. AICRP on Post Harvest Technology and AICRP on Processing. Handling and storage of Jaggery (Gur) and the same recommendation was also made by the Dean of the department concerned which has been filed as Annexure-C to the writ petition. 10. The petitioner was already working on the date of termination of services in the project AICRP on Post Harvest Technology. The services of the petitioner was terminated on 16-12-1992 without assigning any reason while working in the project AICRP on Post Harvest Technology. Such action of the University is manifestly arbitrary. 11. In the result the writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 16th December 1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be permitted to continue on the post on which he was working in the project AICRP on Post Harvest Technology and will be paid salary by the Respondents.