JUDGMENT 1. - All these 21 writ petitions filed against the University of Ajmer by its employees who were appointed in the year 1988, are based on identical facts and involve common questions of law and therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts relating to the case of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sankhla, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 488 of 89 ) are narrated in detail. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on or about 16.1.1988 for making entries and preparation of Enrolment Register and other miscellaneous clerical works on job basis at the rate of Re. 0.6 per form. It is alleged that later on, the University took the decision to pay Rs. 17/- per day to the non-graduates and Rs. 22/- per day to the graduates as daily wages. It is stated that the petitioner was a graduate and was serving since 16.1.1988 and was paid only Rs. 17/- per day, although he was a graduate. On 18th June, 1988, an office order was issued by the respondent University making temporary appointments on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1750/- per month for 85 days or till further orders, whichever is earlier, and in this office order, names of thirty persons were included, the petitioner Ashok Kumar being at Sr. No. 29. On the expiry of 85 days, the respondent University again issued an office order on 13.9.88 with regard to the appointment of 30 persons and the name of the petitioner Ashok Kumar in this order was shown at Si. No. 30. It was mentioned in this order dated 13.9.88 that the said appointment was for one month or till such time the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur joins duty whichever is earlier. Thereafter, an order was passed on 15.10.1988, appointing 26 persons on the consolidated amount of Rs. 1750/- per month, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sankhla being at Si. No. 26. This appointment was meant only up til 31.10.1988 or till such time as the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, joined duty in the University of Ajmer or till further orders, whichever is earlier. While the petitioners were so continuing, the respondent University of Ajmer invited applications for 40 posts of LDCs on 25.10.88 vide Annexure-5. No. 26. This appointment was meant only up til 31.10.1988 or till such time as the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, joined duty in the University of Ajmer or till further orders, whichever is earlier. While the petitioners were so continuing, the respondent University of Ajmer invited applications for 40 posts of LDCs on 25.10.88 vide Annexure-5. The minimum qualifications required in this notice inviting applications for appointment to the posts of LDC was Sr. Higher Secondary (10 + 2) or equivalent qualification with further two years' working experience in government/semi Government registered company, organisation or knowledge of typing in English/Hindi. However, the second class graduates were exempted from working experience and knowledge of typing. In terms of this advertisement, a screening was to be held to test the knowledge in English and Hindi, general knowledge and familiarity with the University working and the type test, if necessary, was to be conducted for those who qualified in the written test. While the appointment given to the petitioner was to last up to 31.10.88 in terms of the order dated 15.10.88 referred to herein above and the University of Ajmer had invited applications against 40 posts of LDCs vide advertisement dated 25.10.88, as aforesaid, the petitioners agitated and protested before the respondent University against the advertisement of the 40 posts. Their protest was that if at all the appointments were to be made against 40 posts, which had been advertised on 25.10.88, the recruitment should have been confined to the persons like the petitioner who were already working with the University of Ajmer on ad hoc basis and who had gained experience of university working-and were duly eligible but no heed was paid to their protest and the Dy. Registrar (Estt.) issued the notification on 29.10.88 stating therein that a meeting was called on 31.10.88 at 11 a.m. in the Vice Cancellers Secretariat and all temporary employees working on consolidated salary shall present themselves at this meeting. It is the case of the petitioners that this meeting was addressed by the Vice Chancellor who assured and instructed the continuance of the petitioners in the service but maintaining that the written test in terms of Annexure-5 will have to be qualified and they would be regularised in service only subject to their passing the written test. It is the case of the petitioners that this meeting was addressed by the Vice Chancellor who assured and instructed the continuance of the petitioners in the service but maintaining that the written test in terms of Annexure-5 will have to be qualified and they would be regularised in service only subject to their passing the written test. Accordingly, the petitioners continued in the service as hitherto-before and work was also assigned to them. While the petitioners were so continuing in the service even alter 31.3.88, on or about 5.1.1989 they were asked that their services were no more required and thereafter, the petitioner Ashok Kumar filed the writ petition on 4.2.1989 and subsequently, other writ petitions were filed on different dates. The University had entered appearance in these cases through Shri D.K. Soral, Advocate and when the matter came up before the court on 16.5.91, it was noticed that according to the petitioners they were continuing in service even after 31.10.88 and on or about 5.1.89 their services were terminated by verbal orders but according to the University, a letter had been issued on 25.1.1989 to show that some persons had worked without the permission of the University even after 31.10.88 and that there is a collusion between the employees and the officers of the University. Some employees had also been allowed to work in the Secrecy Department i.e. Examination Department and taking note of all these facts, the court felt inclined to find out the truth whether the services of the petitioners were terminated by a verbal order in January, 1989 or whether they had ceased to work on 31.10.88 and it was to be ascertained whether the petitioners had worked only occasionally after 31.10.88 or had worked regularly. Looking to the matter, the court considered it just and proper to find out the truth of the matter and for that purpose, directed the District Judge, Ajmer, on 16.5.1991 as under : "I, therefore, direct the learned District Judge, Ajmer to hold a detailed enquiry whether the petitioners had worked occasionally or regularly after 31st October, 1988 and up to 23rd December, 1988. The learned District Judge shall also hold an enquiry whether the petitioners have signed in the attendance register and if it is so, under what circumstances. The learned District Judge shall also hold an enquiry whether the petitioners have signed in the attendance register and if it is so, under what circumstances. The learned District Judge, Ajmer, is also directed to make an enquiry whether there was any collusion with the employees as stated by Mr. Soral, learned counsel for the University or not. If it is found correct that there was some collusion with the employees, then action shall also be taken against the officers of the University, who allowed the employees to work in the University with the collusion. The learned District Judge, is also directed to complete the enquiry within 3 months from today. In the last, Mr. Dangi submits that some of the petitioners had worked up to 5th January, 1989. May it be so, the learned D.J. Ajmer is also directed to take note of the submissions made by Mr. Dangi. A copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, Ajmer. Sd/- D.L. Mehta, J." 3. District Judge, Ajmer, submitted his report dated 22.5.1992 which is available in the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 313 of 90 Ajay Tiwari v. University of Ajmer The District Judge, Ajmer, has made a detailed report but the salient features of this report and briefly stated the findings are as under : 1. The petitioners had worked in the University even after 31.10.88 up to various dates falling between 15.12.88 to 5.1.1989; 2. Petitioners had worked regularly. 3. One of the petitioners, R.S. Khandelwal had signed in the attendance register in Nov. and December, 1988 and the other petitioners had not signed in any attendance register. 4. There was no collusion between the officers and the employee petitioners and the University had failed to substantiate the allegation of collusion. 5. The period under enquiry was from 1.11.88 and 5.1.89 i.e. 66 days only. 6. On the question as to whether the affidavits filed by Shri D.P. Sharma were authentic, it was reported that the records on which the affidavits were based had not been produced before the District Judge by the University and therefore, it could not be said that the affidavits were false. 6. On the question as to whether the affidavits filed by Shri D.P. Sharma were authentic, it was reported that the records on which the affidavits were based had not been produced before the District Judge by the University and therefore, it could not be said that the affidavits were false. On 1111.1992, the arguments were concluded and the counsel for the University of Ajmer was to produce the relevant record within two weeks, with regard to the selections in question, including the sheets in which the marks of interview were given and the order was reserved. The order-sheet recorded in Writ Petition No. 874/1989 on 3.12.92 shows that the result-sheets in original had been produced and a photostat copy containing the relevant summary prepared on the basis of the same, was passed on to the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner sought time to address on the same and the matter was posted for 7.12.1992. It was pointed out that one of these writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 662 of 92 Ravindra Kumar Verma v. University of Ajmer had been dismissed earlier on 4.2.91 by Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. in the following terms : "Hon'ble Mehta, J. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, for the Petitioner Mr. O.K.Soral, for the Non-petitioner Mr. Virendra Lodha, for the Non-petitioner Heard. Disputed questions of facts are involved in this case. Petitioner is at liberty to raise the dispute before the proper authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 according to law. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as directed above. o order as to costs." Sd/- D.L. Mehta, J." 5. But later on, Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. himself on 16.5.91 directed enquiry by Distt. Judge, Ajmer in other identical matters (reference to which has already been made herein above) and, therefore, on 20.7.91 a review petition was filed by the petitioner Ravindra Kumar in S.B.C.P. No. 662/89 which was registered as S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 146/92. In this review petition, notices were issued by Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. himself on 7.8.91. Judge, Ajmer in other identical matters (reference to which has already been made herein above) and, therefore, on 20.7.91 a review petition was filed by the petitioner Ravindra Kumar in S.B.C.P. No. 662/89 which was registered as S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 146/92. In this review petition, notices were issued by Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. himself on 7.8.91. After retirement of Hon'ble D.L. Mehta, J. this review petition was listed before Hon'ble R.S. Kejriwal, J. before whom it was stated on 26.7.93 that in other identical writ petitions arguments had been heard before this bench and thereafter the review petition of Ravindra Kumar was listed before this bench on 24.8.93 and on the ground of maintaining parity with identical matters the order dated 4.2.91 dismissing the writ petition of Ravindar Kumar was recalled and the review petition was allowed. On this very date i.e. 24.8.93, it was submitted by both the sides that this writ petition i.e. 622/89 may also be decided with other connected matters and arguments were heard on 24.8.93 and order was reserved. 6. In the meanwhile, brief note of the rulings on behalf of the petitioners in 12 cases jointly was filed on 4.1.1993 under signatures of Shri Virendra Dangi and on the very same date i.e. 4.1.1993, an additional affidavit in Writ Petition No. 640 of 1989 Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer was also filed; and thereafter, a brief note of the rulings on behalf of the respondents, dated 16/30th March, 1993 also appears to have been filed in W.P. No. 640/89. Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer . Yet, another brief note of rulings dated 31st March, 1993 on behalf of the petitioners was filed in Writ Petition No. 640/89 i.e. Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer . All these four sets are included in the record of Writ Petition No. 640 of 89 Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer . On 13.1.1994 additional affidavits were filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 640/89, 662/89, 808/89, 810/89, 812/89 and 874/89 in relation to advertisement dated 3.1.94 for the posts of LEX 's and such affidavits are included in the respective files. 7. On 13.1.1994 additional affidavits were filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 640/89, 662/89, 808/89, 810/89, 812/89 and 874/89 in relation to advertisement dated 3.1.94 for the posts of LEX 's and such affidavits are included in the respective files. 7. On 13.1.1994 second stay applications were filed in certain cases and replies thereto were also filed on 25.1.1994 in few cases out of them and the same are included in the respective files of such second stay applications, details of which are as under : S.No. Case No. & Title Stay Filed on Reply Filed on 1. SBCWP.640/89 Anil Mathur 13.1.94 25.1.94 2. SBCWP 662/89 Ravindra Kumar -do- -do- 3. SBCWP 313/89 Ajai Tiwari -do- -do- 4. SBCWP 808/89 Bhanvar Lal -do- -do- 5. SBCWP 809/89 Govind Singh -do- -do- 6. SBCWP 810/89 Rajeev Kumar -do- -do- 7. SBCWP 812/89 Vinod Klunar -do- -do- 8. SBCWP 874/89 Rakesh Kumar .-do- -do- 9. SBCWP 1109/89 Zakir Hussain -do- -do- 10. SBCWP 2081/89 Sushil Kumar -do- Not filed 11. SBCWP 2483/89 Gajanand -do- Not filed 12. SBCWP 891/89 Kumud -do- 25.1.94 13. SBCWP 3877/89 Rakesh Parashar -do- -do- 14. SBCWP 489/89 Praveen Kumar -do- Not filed 15. SBCWP 488/89 Ashok Kumar -do- -do- 16. SBCWP 1257/89 Abdul Hameed -do- -do- 8. On 25.1.1994 the parties filed further papers as under : (i) List of candidates who qualified in the test as filed by Shri Anil Khanna, Advocate, showing that Shri Ashok Sankhla, Praveen Kumar Nandi, Rakesh Chand Parashar and Abdul Hameed Khan had qualified in the test (included in the file of Ashok Kumar Sankhla SBCWP 488/89). (ii) A summary of successful candidates appointed (chart filed under signatures of Shri C.N. Sharma included in the file of Ashok Kumar Sankhla SBCWP/488/89). (iii) A joint brief statement regarding of thirteen petitioners as under : 1. SBCWP No. 640/89 Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer. Appeared in Test. Result not declared, not called for interview. 2. SBCWP No. 808/89 Bhanwar Lal Kumawat v. University of Ajmer . -do- 3. SBCWP No. 809/89 Govind Singh v. University of Ajmer -do- 4. SBCWP No. 810/89 Rajeev v. University of Ajmer -do- 5. SBCWP No. 812/89 Vinod Kumar v. University of Ajmer .-do- 6. SBCWP No. 874/89 Rakesh Kumar Saini (Handicapped) v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in Test. Result not declared. -do- 3. SBCWP No. 809/89 Govind Singh v. University of Ajmer -do- 4. SBCWP No. 810/89 Rajeev v. University of Ajmer -do- 5. SBCWP No. 812/89 Vinod Kumar v. University of Ajmer .-do- 6. SBCWP No. 874/89 Rakesh Kumar Saini (Handicapped) v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in Test. Result not declared. Out of 60 posts newly advertised 2 posts must have been kept for handicapped persons but respondents have not reserved any post for handicapped which is illegal. 7. SBCWP No. 989/89 Shyam Prakash v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in test. Result not declared. 8. SBCWP No. 1109/89 Zakir Hussain v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in test. Result not declared. 9. SBCWP No. 2081/89 Susheel Kumar Gupta v. University of Ajmer . -do - 10. SBCWP No. 2483/89 Gajanang Sharma v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in Screening Test. Result of Screening Test and interview were never published or informed. Simply called for interview not given appointment. He worked as UDC @ 900/- p.m. He was not allowed for typing test. It is apparent from interview letter dt. 16.12.88. Photo slat enclosed. 11. SBCWP No. 2488/89 Om Prakash v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in Screening Test. Called for interview. No typing test was taken and given appointment vide order No. 22788-834 dated 21.12.1989. He was also asked to work as UDC @ 900/, 12. SBCWP No. 314/89 Ajay Tiwari v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in Screening Test and called for interview. Not allowed to appear in Typing test. Result of test not declared nor published, nor pasted on notice board. Result of interview also not declared or informed. Appointment is also not given till date. (It is clearly revealed from Interview Call letter dated 16.12.1988. In that letter also it was not mentioned whether the petitioner had cleared screening test or not). Photostat enclosed. 13. SBCWP No. 662/89 Ravindra Kumar Verma v. University of Ajmer . Appeared in written test but not called for interview. The result of written test or interview not declared or informed nor published and he worked from 233.88 to 23.12.88 and continued and worked with other petitioners throughout. He also asked to work as UDC @ 900 -" 9. This joint brief statement is included in the file of Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 640 of 89 . 10. He also asked to work as UDC @ 900 -" 9. This joint brief statement is included in the file of Anil Mathur v. University of Ajmer, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 640 of 89 . 10. It was submitted on 25.1.1994 by both the sides that they had nothing more to add and the matters were posted for dictation of order. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the appointment of the petitioners on consolidated salary in March, 1988 and it is also not in dispute that in the first instance, a fixed term appointment for 90 days was given and thereafter, the services were extended in June, 1988 for further 85 days or till further orders, whichever is earlier. Extension was again granted by order dated 13.9.88 for a period of one month. or till such time the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan joined duty, whichever is earlier. However, in this order dated 13.9.88, the word 'contract' was used. It is also not in dispute . that no written order was issued to terminate the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.11.88 and no written order was passed extending the services after the said date i.e. 1.11.1988. However, the petitioner's case has been that the work was taken from them continuously even after 1.11.1988, in some cases up to 23.12.1988 and in certain cases up to 5.1.1989. As has been stated in the earlier part of the judgment, the Distt. Judge, Ajmer was appointed by the court to make a detailed enquiry and submit his report. In pursuance of this court's order dated 16.5.91, the Distt. Judge, Ajmer, gave his report dated 22.5.1992 with regard to the cases referred in his covering letter dated 23rd May, 1992. The report further shows that with regard to W.P. No. 2756/89, 809/89, 633/89, 1109/89 and 793/89, the report has been made on two additional points. The salient features of this report with findings in brief have already been mentioned in the earlier part of the order. 12. It is clearly made out from the report dated 22.5.92 made by the Distt. Judge, Ajmer under directions of this Court that the petitioners had regularly worked in the University even after 31.10.88 up to various dates falling between 15.12.88 to 5.1.89. There is no reason to disbelieve the report. 12. It is clearly made out from the report dated 22.5.92 made by the Distt. Judge, Ajmer under directions of this Court that the petitioners had regularly worked in the University even after 31.10.88 up to various dates falling between 15.12.88 to 5.1.89. There is no reason to disbelieve the report. In this view of the matter, if the period of working after 31.10.88 is included, the petitioners have worked for a period over 240 days. From 16th March, 1988 up to 31.10.88, the period comes out to be 231 days and thereafter, even if any of the petitioners has worked for a period of 9 days only up to 15.12.88 or 5.1.1989, it certainly reaches 240 days, therefore, the cases are to be examined on the premise that each of the petitioners had completed 240 days. 13. However, the question which yet remains to be examined is as to whether in the facts of this case, it was a case of retrenchment or not and as to whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act, or not. The main argument of Shri C.N. Sharma, on behalf of the University was that even if it is found that the petitioners had worked beyond 31.10.88 and that they had worked for a period of over 240 days, they were discharged from service in terms of the stipulation made at the time when their appointments were made and that too when the selected candidates became available, in view of the amended Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, it was not at all a case of retrenchment and hence, there was no question of following Section 25-F before discharging their services. It was also submitted that no wages were paid after 31.10.88 and further that in the selections which were held, the petitioners had appeared and they failed, and those who were selected viz. , Gajanand, Ajay Tiwari, O.P. Gupta have already been appointed. It was also pointed out that certain candidates viz., Abdul Hameed, Praveer Nandi, Ashok Sankhla, Rajesh Prashar who had passed in the written test were called for interview but had not been selected. 14. , Gajanand, Ajay Tiwari, O.P. Gupta have already been appointed. It was also pointed out that certain candidates viz., Abdul Hameed, Praveer Nandi, Ashok Sankhla, Rajesh Prashar who had passed in the written test were called for interview but had not been selected. 14. As against it, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act and in fact, Section 2(oo)(bb) was not attracted in the present case because the first appointment was of course for a fixed period but later on, there was no fixed date on which the appointment was to expire and there was no certainty attached to any appointment, and the petitioners were allowed to continue even after the expiry of the fixed period and were later on terminated by a verbal order when they had already completed 240 days and it constitutes a case of retrenchment. Shri C.N. Sharma has stressed that the termination in the instant case, was in terms of the stipulation made at the time of appointment and therefore, in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) there is no question of taking it to be a case of retrenchment. He has further argued that even if it is taken that after the expiry of the initial period for which they had been appointed, it is found that the petitioners were continuing without specifying any date for such continuance in this behalf, it cannot be disputed that the termination in this case was ordered on availability of the regularly selected candidates and thus, the petitioners who were not selected had to be terminated and thus, the termination was in terms of the stipulations contained in the contract and so also there is no basis to hold it as a case of retrenchment. 15. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides in this regard. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 is reproduced as under : "(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or" 16. I have already held that these cases are to be examined on the basis that the petitioners had completed 240 days of their working. There is no dispute that in. I have already held that these cases are to be examined on the basis that the petitioners had completed 240 days of their working. There is no dispute that in. the first instance the petitioners were appointed for a fixed period and there is also no dispute that they were allowed to continue in service beyond that period and orders for their appointment up to 31.10.88 are also not disputed. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sankhla, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 488 of 89 ) order dated 18.6.88 (Annexure-2) shows that it was an appointment order giving appointments to thirty candidates for a period of 85 days but the subsequent orders dated 13.9.1988 and 15.10.88 i.e. Annexure-3 and 4, show that the appointment was given for a period of one month and then up to 31.10.88 in terms of Annexure-3 and 4, dated 13.9.88 and 15.10.98 respectively. In orders Annexure-3 dated 13.9.88 and Annexure-4 dated 15.10.88, it has been mentioned as under : "All the non-plan posts for the University of Ajmer, Ajmer, have been sanctioned on the condition that on these posts surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan shall be absorbed. Since it may take sometime for the surplus staff to join at Ajmer and since the work of the University of Ajmer is to be carried out, the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to make the following temporary appointments purely on contract basis on consolidated amount of Rs. 750/- p.m. for a period of one month (order dated 13.9.88 Annx. 3)/up to 31.10.88 (order dated 15.10.88 Annx. 4) or till such time the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, joins duty here, whichever is earlier/till further orders, whichever is earlier." 17. In terms of these orders, so far as the period is concerned, the same was over on 31.10.88 but it has been proved and held that the petitioners continued in service even beyond this date of 31.10.88, and they were never made known with regard to any further date for their continuance or otherwise and they continued in service even after 31.10.88 up till about 5.1.89, when their services were terminated by verbal orders. Thus, formal orders for their continuance beyond 31.10.88 may not have been passed but the fact remains that they continued and worked even thereafter and by the time their services were terminated by verbal orders, they had already completed more than 240 days and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that their services were terminated as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment. It was for the University to pass appropriate orders of appropriate time and we have to look to the matter of substance and not the form and therefore, the absence of passing of the formal orders at appropriate time cannot be made the basis to say that the termination was the result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment. If the termination was to be made as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment, automatically it should have resulted into their termination from 1.11.1988 itself when the period fixed vide order dated 15.10.88 (Anx. 4) i.e. up to 31.10.88, was over. Thus, on the basis of the report made by the District Judge, Ajmer, it can be safely concluded that there was an implied renewal for the period after 31.10.88 and no further definite date with regard to continuance or termination was fixed. I, therefore, hold that in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, it cannot be construed as a case of termination as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment. 18. The other limb of the arguments raised by Shri C.N. Sharma to substantiate that it was not a case of retrenchment with reference to Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, is that it was under the stipulation. I have already extracted the Preamble of the latest orders Annx. 3 and 4, dated 13.9.88 and 15.10.88, and from these orders, it is clearly discernible that the stipulation was for termination with the joining of the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan. I have already extracted the Preamble of the latest orders Annx. 3 and 4, dated 13.9.88 and 15.10.88, and from these orders, it is clearly discernible that the stipulation was for termination with the joining of the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan. Counsel for the University failed to show either from the pleadings or otherwise, that any surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan had joined, which was the stipulation in the two orders referred to herein above, and has stressed that the selected candidates had become available;"although counsel for the University has established that the regularly selected candidates had become available and in the regular selections, only 3 of the petitioners had been selected. Availability of the regularly selected candidates may afford a good reason for the retrenchment but it cannot be said that it is not a case of retrenchment. Therefore, I hold that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 is not attracted in the facts of these cases, and I further hold that it is a case of retrenchment and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and the provisions of the same should have been followed, which have admittedly not been followed treating them to be unnecessary in these cast 19. The affidavits which have been filed subsequently and the second stay petitions which have been moved in certain cases, as has already been stated herein above, make it very clear that 60 posts of LDCs have become available and the same have been advertised vide advertisement No. 4/Estt./93 dated 31.12.93 issued by M.D.S. University, Ajmer, which is the new name of the University of Ajmer, and the petitioners have submitted that they are the retrenched employees and are entitled to be taken against these vacancies under section 25-H of the Act of 1947. In the replies to the second stay petitions which have been filed by the University of Ajmer, it has been stated that 60 posts of LDCs-cum-Typists have been advertised but the conclusions drawn by the petitioners due to this advertisement of the posts are unwarranted and that there is no violation of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. In the replies to the second stay petitions which have been filed by the University of Ajmer, it has been stated that 60 posts of LDCs-cum-Typists have been advertised but the conclusions drawn by the petitioners due to this advertisement of the posts are unwarranted and that there is no violation of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. Section 25-H of the Act of 1947 is reproduced as under : "25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen : Whereas any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employment any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons." 20. This provision deals with the re-employment of the retrenched workman and accordingly, when the employer proposes to take into his employment, an opportunity has to be given to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment, are entitled to have preference over other persons. The petitioners are retrenched workmen in view of my finding recorded above that it is a case of retrenchment. The availability of 60 posts is not denied by the University of Ajmer. The nomenclature of the posts i.e. LDC or LDC-cum-Typists, troy makes any difference and accordingly, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. 21. Good number of cases were cited for and on behalf of both the sides but I need not go into all these cases in detail as there is no dispute with the preposition of law, whether a given case is a case of retrenchment or not, has to be decided on the basis of the facts relevant to that case and it is to be construed on the basis of orders and the circumstances attendant and preceding to such orders and the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time when the termination is ordered. Reference may, of course, be made to the latest decision of the Supreme Court which was cited before me i.e. AIR 1993 SC 115 Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan . Reference may, of course, be made to the latest decision of the Supreme Court which was cited before me i.e. AIR 1993 SC 115 Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan . In this case, the Supreme Court held that the orders of termination of service on availability of properly recruited employees by Public Service Commission were not illegal. In the cases at hand, the regularly selected candidates had become available which could be a reason for retrenchment I have already considered and held that in the present matter. Section 25(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 is not attracted, inasmuch as there was implied renewal of the contract beyond 31.10.88 and the stipulation in the order was the joining of the surplus staff of the University of Rajasthan which contingency did not happen and therefore, it was a case of retrenchment. Once it is held that it is a case of retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have to be followed. The reason which has been given by the University i.e. the availability of regularly selected candidates, even if held to be a good reason for retrenchment, does not absolve the University from the liability of following the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Section 25-F itself says that before retrenchment, the workman has to be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and he has to be paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice; he has to be paid retrenchment compensation etc. Thus, notwithstanding the reason of retrenchment i.e. the availability of the regularly selected candidates, the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 had to be followed and the same have not been followed in the instant cases. 22. Thus, notwithstanding the reason of retrenchment i.e. the availability of the regularly selected candidates, the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 had to be followed and the same have not been followed in the instant cases. 22. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Gyani's case (supra), the Supreme Court has considered in para 14 of the judgment that 180 persons properly recruited by R.P.S.C. were made available for appointment and such persons had in fact been given appointment and hence, in any event, the services of the appellants and other employees in special leave petitions, were liable to termination on the availability of the properly recruited persons and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court did not find such employees to be entitled to any direction that they should be held to be in service or that they are continuing as such. In this case, the Supreme Court in fact left even this question open as to whether the insurance and public provident fund department was an industry or not and thus, there was no question to consider as to whether it was a case of retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 or not or with regard to the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. In the end of para 14 and in para 15 of this very judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "In the facts of the cases, we do not think that it is necessary to decide whether or not the said Insurance and Public Provident Fund Department is an Industry. Such question is, therefore, kept open to be decided in an appropriate case on the basis of proper materials." "15. It, however, appears from the Report submitted before us by the learned counsel for the State that at the present moment total number of vacancies is 191 as shown in List D and 59 employees on daily wages bases are working in terms of the interim orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court or by this Court. It, therefore, appears to us that against the available vacancies, the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. It, therefore, appears to us that against the available vacancies, the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6597-6607 of 1986 deserve a sympathetic consideration for appointment since it is no body's case that even at this time, services of more Lower Division Clerks are not required or the appellant and these petitioners are not capable of discharging their functions as Lower Division Clerks. It has been submitted before us that persons who had been continuing in service in terms of the interim order of the Rajasthan High Court have become eligible to be considered for regularisation in terms of the Government Order passed subsequently but since the cases of the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions had been decided by the Appeal Bench of Rajasthan High Court against the concerned employees they have been deprived of such consideration for regularisation. In our view, it is only just and proper if a pragmatic and sympathetic consideration is made in respect of the appellant and the other petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions so that if they have got the requisite qualifications like similarly circumstanced persons being eligible for appointment and/or regularisation they also should be considered for appointment and for regularisation against the available vacancies so that useful service rendered by them in past may get a proper recognition. It is reasonably expected that State Government should give an anxious and sympathetic consideration to the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions in the matter of appointment in the available vacancies according to the seniority and the length of service rendered by such persons as Daily Rated L.D.Cs. in the said State Insurance and Provident Fund Deptt. by making appropriate provisions. With the aforesaid observations, Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1986 and the S.L.P. No. 6597-6607 of 1986 and 12528 of 1986 are disposed of without any order as to costs." 23. My findings may be precisely summarised as under : 1.The petitioners had completed 240 days of services at the time of their termination. 2. There was a good reason available for the termination of their service. 3. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 is not attracted in the cases and circumstances of the cases at hand. 4. My findings may be precisely summarised as under : 1.The petitioners had completed 240 days of services at the time of their termination. 2. There was a good reason available for the termination of their service. 3. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947 is not attracted in the cases and circumstances of the cases at hand. 4. It is a case of retrenchment and requirements of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were required to be followed, which have not been followed. 5. Vacancies are available in the University of Ajmer and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. 24. In view of the findings arrived at by me as above, the question arises as to what relief the petitioners arc entitled to. 25. It has been held that in the instant cases, the reason for the termination of employees was the availability of the candidates selected in the regular selections. Availability of regularly selected candidates is no doubt a valid reason for passing the termination order. It is also not in dispute that whatever number of posts were available at that time were made use for the purpose of accommodating the regularly selected candidates and as such, there was no vacancy against which the petitioners (-Add have been continued, nevertheless the fact remains that it was a case of retrenchment and retrenchment was affected without following the requirements of c. 25-F of the Act of 1947 and the petitioners have suffered the violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief of rt instatement and back wages to the petitioners but in the facts and circumstances of the cases, narrated here in above, I feel inclined to direct that each of the petitioners except those three petitioners who had been selected and appointed at that very time will be entitled to a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs. 11,000j-(Rs. eleven thousand only). 11,000j-(Rs. eleven thousand only). With regard to the violation of provisions of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947, as I have held that the petitioners being subjected to retrenchment, are entitled to have a preference in the matter of employment against the vacancies which have become available subsequently and which have already been notified and they are said to be 60 in number, the petitioners who were retrenched and who were not appointed by the University at that time are entitled to get this preference under section 25-H of the Act of 1947. It is therefore directed that the petitioners, other than those who were appointed on the basis of selection earlier, will be offered re-employment, and such number of vacancies out of the 60 which have been advertised now, shall be made use of for the purpose of allowing those petitioners to be in employment, subject to the condition that all such petitioners will have to face the regular process of selection within a period of six months from the date of their re-employment on the qualifications of the post of LDC as per the University regulations and such number of posts out of the 60 which have been advertised as LDC-cum- Typists shall be made available for the concerned petitioners and the University will be free to proceed to make selections with regard to the rest of the vacancies out of these 60 vacancies, and the mere mention of nomenclature of these posts of LDC-cum-Typist will be no impediment in making these posts available to the concerned petitioners for their regular selection subject to the their qualifications for the post of LDC. In case the University does not complete the process of adjudging their suitability within a period of six months from the date of their re-employment, the petitioners shall continue in service till their suitability is adjudged by the University. Certain candidates about whom reference has already been made here in above had passed written test but had failed in the typing test for them it is directed that while adjudging their suitability against these posts, they will be required to appear only in the typing test, if necessary and not in the written examination. 26. All these writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed *******