B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ALL the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were appointed in the hostels that are being maintained by the respondent- university in various capacities such as servers, sweepers, helpers, watchmen, rice cleaners, Assistant Electricians, Assistant gas mechanic, store attenders, Assistant steward, matrons, games boy, cleaners and gardeners from 1982 and they are working on daily wage basis for all these years. The first petitioner in W. P. No. 25598 of 1997 was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20-11-1985. Except petitioners 6,9,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 20 in W. P. No. 3391 of 1998, the other petitioners 94 in number, were appointed prior to 25-11-1993. As these petitioners were appointed after cut-off date in temporary appointment i. e. , after 25-11-1993 under Section 3 of Act 2 of 1994, i cannot give any relief to them in this case. The Writ Petition No. 3391 of 1998 in so far as the petitioners 6, 9,13,14,15,16,17,18 md 20 namely A. Venkatamuni, k. Manikantan, T. Venkatesh, t. Srinivasulu, S. Munikrishna, S. Rajul reddy, G. Ramachandraiah, A. Umapathi and P. Balaji respectively is dismissed. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondent- university was appointing them for 89 days at a time and after giving one day break they are being re-appointed since 1982 onwards. It is also their case that though they are working for more than a decade, the respondents have not shown any inclination to regularise their services and pay the time-scales. After issuance of g. O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 wherein the scheme was framed to regularise the services of the temporary employees, the government seemed to have called for the particulars of the employees whose cases will fall under the above G. O. and the university seemed to have sent proposals in their letter No. l729/ue-I-l/94/95 dated 20-11-1995. But the Government in its letter dated 22-11-1995 rejected the request of the university on the ground that those petitioners are being paid from the hostel funds and they cannot be brought into the university services as per the scheme envisaged in G. O. Ms. No. 212. But the Government in its letter dated 22-11-1995 rejected the request of the university on the ground that those petitioners are being paid from the hostel funds and they cannot be brought into the university services as per the scheme envisaged in G. O. Ms. No. 212. Questioning the said letter, some of the employees filed w. P. No. 26054 of 1995 and this Court by order dated 13-8-1997 held that when it is admitted that the hostels are established and maintained by the University, the university cannot refuse to treat the employees working in the hostels as employees of the University and accordingly the letter of the Government dated 22-11-1995 was set. aside and a direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services and to pay them regular time-scales of pay in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of haryana vs. P. R. Singh forthwith and the respondents were given four weeks of time to comply with the orders. The respondent- university instead of regularizing the services of the temporary employees tried to fill up as many as 190 existing vacancies by issuing a notification. In those circumstances while the petitioners in W. P. No. 26054 of 1995 filed C. C. 830 of 1998 and other temporary employees filed these writ petitions on various dates and obtained interim orders for their continuance. While admitting the Contempt Case by order dated 13-7-1998 I directed the Registrar of the S. V. University as well as the Principal secretary to the Government, Higher education to appear in the Court. The registrar of the S. V. University having appeared in the Court on 10-8-1998 submitted that he sent proposals to the government_on 14-10-1997 and the same is pending with the Government. ( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the principal Secretary to the Government, higher Education it is stated that the proposal of the University was examined in consultation with the Finance and Planning department as its concurrence is necessary and the Finance and Planning Department informed them that in the absence of clear vacancies it is not possible to consider the proposal of the Registrar of the said university. Finance and Planning department further stated that regular scales of pay attached to the posts are contingent upon regularisation and as such payment of regular pay at the level of minimum scale is also not possible. In those circumstances the proposal was rejected by the Government in its letter No. l729/ve-I/ 1/95 dated 27-7-1998. ( 4 ) DURING pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-University in its advertisement E. I. (3)/1999, dated 6-4-1999 invited applications for appointment of the following posts: 1. Server at Cuddapah : 1 2. Cleaners at Cuddapah : 2 3. Cleaners at Tirupathi : 12 4. Rice-cleaners at Tirupathi : 2 ( 5 ) BY order dated 23-4-1999 in the said contempt case, the respondent-University was restrained from filling up any of the vacancies as notified in the said advertisement. ( 6 ) THE respondent-University filed its counter in the batch of writ petitions on 11-8-1999. The case of the respondent is that whatever may be the nomenclature of the posts, they have to be made by the Vice- chancellor and in this case the Chief warden or Warden of the hostels unauthorisedly and without sanction and permission of the University administration appointed these petitioners on consolidated pay and as they were appointed by incompetent authority, they are not entitled to the relief of regularisation of their services. It is also their case that way back on 6-8-1981, the State Government had issued instructions to the University not to make any appointments without prior approval of the State Government and the said directions were communicated to the wardens of the Hostels in the University campus as well as the Special Officers in charge of the Hostels in Post Graduate centers in University by letter dated 16-9-1982 with the following guidelines (1) Not to make any fresh appointments even on contingent basis. The earlier instructions were reiterated in its letter dated 24-6-1995 and the Chief Warden as well as the Wardens appointed these individuals in various hostels from time to time contrary to the prohibitory directions. (2) Under Section 49 of the A. P. University Act without prior approval of the State Government no new posts can be created. All these petitioners are being paid from the amounts collected from the boarders without liability on the part of the University. (3) To fill. (2) Under Section 49 of the A. P. University Act without prior approval of the State Government no new posts can be created. All these petitioners are being paid from the amounts collected from the boarders without liability on the part of the University. (3) To fill. up the sanctioned and budgetary posts in various cadres, selection Committee must be constituted to consider the applications and to make recommendations to the appointing authority who in turn is expected to make the appointment by following the rule of reservation. Such a procedure was not followed in this case. At the same time, the Registrar categorically admitted that there are three hostels in the University campus with boarder strength of 3015 and about 227 sanctioned posts were in existence in these three hostels. Petitioners were appointed by chief Warden/wardens over and above the sanctioned posts by giving different designations. It is also their case that some of the petitioners are not having the prescribed educational qualifications to held the posts in which they are working and some of them have not completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993. After Act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 27 of 1998 the claims of the petitioners though not completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993 have been abated. In para 13 of the counter, the Registrar stated that subsequent to the filing, of the writ petitions 17 regular vacancies have arisen and the university in its letter No. E. I (3)/1997 dated 25-10-1997 sought for the permission of the government for absorption of the temporary employees in those posts- It is also his case that on the basis of length of service a panel of 17 persons was prepared for regularisation of their services and permission was sought for to fill up the vacancies and the Government has not accorded permission till now. Lastly, it is contended that without there being a vacancy in the sanctioned strength regularisation cannot be sought for. Lastly, it is contended that without there being a vacancy in the sanctioned strength regularisation cannot be sought for. ( 7 ) THE Government in para 4 of the counter filed in C. C. No. 830 of 1998 referred to the letter of the Registrar dated 25-10-1997 seeking permission of the regularisation of the 17 persons of the services empanelled for regular absorption and states that the matter is still in consultation with the Finance Department which in turn sought for the information regarding the number of existing vacancies and also appointment letters of the individuals and till now the University has not furnished the said information and as and when required information is received from the Registrar, the Government will examine the above proposal regarding the regularisation of the services of the 17 persons. ( 8 ) EXCEPT the two contentions raised by the Registrar, all other contentions including the one by the Government in letter No. l729/ue. I-l/95 dated 27-7-1998 wherein the proposal sent by the Registrar for regularisation of the services of the petitioners covered by W. P. No. 26054 of 1995 wherein the Finance and Planning department has to give permission to regularise the services of the petitioners in the absence of clear vacancies by the government are dealt with in W. P. No. 7175 of 1997 dated 8-12-2000 in the light of amending Act 27 of 1998 of Act 2 of 1994 and having struck down the Act 27 of 1998, i directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners appointed on temporary basis prior to 25-11-1993 and continuing as such as on that date and others as arid when they complete five years of service and Ae said judgment shall form part of this judgment ( 9 ) WITH regard to the contentions of the respondents that the Chief Warden/or the wardens of the Hostels appointed these individuals without sanction and permission of the University administration and as such they are not entitled for regularisation of their services, I have no manner of doubt in holding that this is a lame excuse invented by the University to throw the petitioners out of the employment having utilised their services over a period of 2 decades on starving wages. In the counter they categorically stated that the State Government in its letter dated 6-8-1981 directed the University not to make any appointments without prior approval of the State Government. If the dates of the appointments of these petitioners are seen, they were all appointed subsequent to the date. If the petitioners are really appointed without the knowledge and consent of the appointing authority, nothing prevented the authorities to direct the termination of the services of the petitioners and also to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring Officers of the University in making these appointments in violation of the instructions given by the University in its letter dated 16-9-1982. But the University has not done that for the simple reason that in the light of the instructions given by the government regular appointments cannot be made and if man power is not available the hostels cannot function and therefore such a procedure was followed to circumvent the instructions given by the state Government, but at the same time it should be kept in mind that these appointments were made in the exigency of administration but not otherwise. Further, it is difficult to believe that the petitioners, even if they are appointed unauthorisedly by the Chief Warden/or Wardens, are continued in service for over two decades without the knowledge and the consent of the superior officers of the University including the Vice-Chancellor. For the purpose of this writ petition, it is suffice to hold that their silence or inaction in not rectifying the mistake committed by the wardens of the Hostels for nearly 20 years amounts to ratification of the appointments made by those officers and the respondents are estopped from contending that the appointments of the petitioners are irregular and they cannot seek the relief of regularisation of their services. The very fact that they sent proposals time and again to the Government for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees would amply prove that they are aware of these appointments and they were pleading with the Government to permit them to regularise the services of the petitioners. Hence, I do not find any merit in this contention. The very fact that they sent proposals time and again to the Government for regularisation of the services of the temporary employees would amply prove that they are aware of these appointments and they were pleading with the Government to permit them to regularise the services of the petitioners. Hence, I do not find any merit in this contention. ( 10 ) COMING to the other contention that these petitioners are being paid from out of the amounts collected from the boarders, it is not for this Court to enquire into from what source these petitioners are being paid for all these years. The fact remains that the university being a residential University, it is under obligation to maintain the hostels to provide food and shelter to the boarding students prosecuting their studies in the university and it cannot escape from its obligation in establishing and maintaining the hostels and to provide accommodation and supply of food as no outsider is allowed to run the canteens or hostels in the university campus, I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and technology vs. State of U. P. . In that case the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the University strenuously contended that the employees of the cafeteria were not under direct control of the University but it was Food Committee that was in management and control of the cafeteria and since there exists no evidence whatsoever on record that the employees working in the Cafeteria were appointed by the University in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or the statute framed thereunder, question of there being any master-servant relationship would not arise. He also contended that there is no budgetary allocation provided in the University-Budget to meet the expenses on account of the salaries of the Cafeteria employees and as such, question of the cafeteria employees being termed to be employees of the University would not arise. He also contended that there is no budgetary allocation provided in the University-Budget to meet the expenses on account of the salaries of the Cafeteria employees and as such, question of the cafeteria employees being termed to be employees of the University would not arise. By relying on the judgment of the supreme Court in All India Railway Institute employees Association vs. Union of India ( (1990) 2 SCC 549) the learned Judge of the supreme Court having noticed the provisions of the Act and statutes made thereunder and having held that the judgment cited by the learned Additional solicitor General is not applicable to the facts of the case held as follows:"the detailed analysis as above has been introduced in this judgment so as to exhibit the control of the University in the matter of running of the cafeteria. As noticed above, a residential University having a canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare service to the students. It is a requirement of the regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory sanction and force-the issue thus comes up for consideration as to whether it is a mere ancillary benefit conferred on to the inmates of the hostel or an essential requirement. The regulations pertaining to the hostel accommodation and the supplies of food do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat it as an essential requirement so far as the inmates of the hostel are concerned. The involvement of the Vice- chancellor, the Warden and the Food managers who, admittedly, all belong to the University as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisation will undoubtedly bring forth parity with the other employees of the University. The requirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed aside. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels-there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have to depend on to the cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria it is a requirement of the Regulation. 10. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels-there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have to depend on to the cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria it is a requirement of the Regulation. 10. Admittedly, Cafeteria employees need succor for livelihood - would they continue to remain half fed and half clad as long as they live - is this the society that we feel proud of: Is this the guarantee provided by the founding fathers of our Constitution or is this the concept of socialism which they conceived? None of the answers can possibly be in the affirmative. The situation is rather awesome and deplorable - the university by compulsion directs students to be residents of hostel with a definite ban on having food from outside agencies excepting under special circumstances and the provider of food, namely the staff of the cafeteria ought not to be treated as an employee of the University- whose employee they are if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent on our part to ask the same is it the consumer of food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the employer? These are the questions which remain unanswered: The society shall have to thrive: The society shall have to prosper and this prosperity can only come in the event of therebeing a wider vision for t6tal social good and benefit. It is not bestowing any favour to anybody but it is a mandatory obligation to see that the society thrives. The deprivation of the weaker section we had for long, but time has now come to cry halt and it is for the law Courts to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to a seeker of a just cause and just grievance. Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millennium, it is the obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker; Society is to remain, social justice is the order and economic justice is the rule of the day. Narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents no longer survives. Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millennium, it is the obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker; Society is to remain, social justice is the order and economic justice is the rule of the day. Narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents no longer survives. The principle of corporate jurisprudence is now being imbibed on to industrial jurisprudence and there is a long catena of cases in regard thereto - the law thus is not in a state of fluidity since the situation is more or less settled. As regards interpretation widest possible amplitude shall have to be offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory documents under industrial jurisprudence. The draconian concept is no longer available. Justice-social and economic as noticed above ought to be made available with utmost expedition so that the socialistic pattern of the society as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have its foundation so that the future generation do not live in the dark and cry for social and economic justice. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) IN para 14 of the judgment their lordships categorically held that the financial implications have no relevance while rending justice-social and economic to the weaker sections of the Society in the following words:"in a faint attempt Mr. Trivedi wanted to introduce a pragmatic approach to the problem and contended that the law Courts should consider the matter from different angles applying practical experience and factual contexts before arriving at the solution. It has been contended that the financial implications would be rather much too heavy on the university to be borne by it and unless state assistance is made available, it would a well neigh impossibility to meet the burden. We are, however, unable to record our concurrence thereto. Pragmatism does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the weaker sections of the society. The submission, if we may say with respect, is totally misplaced and does not warrant any further discussion thereon. We are, however, unable to record our concurrence thereto. Pragmatism does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the weaker sections of the society. The submission, if we may say with respect, is totally misplaced and does not warrant any further discussion thereon. " ( 12 ) HAVING rejected both the contentions that there is no relationship of master and servant between the employees working in the Cafeteria and the University: and there will be severe finance implications if the services of the temporary employees are directed to be regularised by the University directed regularisation of the services as many as 175 employees working in the cafeteria maintained by the University. Hence, it is too late in the day to contend that the employees working in the hostel canteens are being paid wages from the amounts collected from the students and there is no relationship of master and servant between the University and the canteen employees and as such it is not bound to pay the time-scales of pay attached to the posts in which they are working. ( 13 ) NEXTLY, the respondents contended that some of the employees are not having the required educational qualifications. But from the notification dated 6-4-1999 it is seen that one should be literate for appointment to the posts of cleaners, rice cleaners. From this, it can be presumed that for the post of sweepers also the educational qualification that may be required is that one should be able to read and sign. Hence I feel in the interests of justice if any of the petitioners are not having requisite qualifications of V class, their cases may be considered for regularisation as sweepers keeping in view of the length of service put in by them. In the light of foregoing discussion, the orders passed by the Government in rejecting the proposal sent by the Registrar in his Letter roc. No. E. I (3)/1997 dated 14-10-1997 in its letter No. l729/ue,i-l/1995 dated 27-7-1998 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and it is declared as arbitrary. In the light of foregoing discussion, the orders passed by the Government in rejecting the proposal sent by the Registrar in his Letter roc. No. E. I (3)/1997 dated 14-10-1997 in its letter No. l729/ue,i-l/1995 dated 27-7-1998 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and it is declared as arbitrary. ( 14 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion a direction is given to the registrar, S. V. University to send proposals for regularisation of the services of the petitioners in all these writ petitions from 25-11-1993 in case of the petitioners who have completed five years of service as on 25-11-1993 and in case of others as and when they complete five years of service without insisting for existence of clear vacancies as stipulated in clause 5 of the g. O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 but subject to fulfillment of other conditions therein within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that while sending proposals, the rule of reservation to be followed in fixing the inter se seniority among them. If required number of candidates from reserved categories are not available to be fitted in the roaster those posts may be carried forward and the backlog posts have to be filled in the next recruitment. The government is directed to give approval for creation of new posts to regularise the services of all petitioners herein duly keeping in mind the findings recorded in this Writ Petition as well as in W. P. No. 7175 of 1997 and batch dated 8-12-2000 within. eight weeks from the date of receipt of proposals from the Registrar, S. V. University. On regularisation of their services, the petitioners are entitled to count their services for the purpose of seniority and other attendant benefits like terminal and pensionary benefits, which are being given to the regular employees of the university. As far as monetary benefit is concerned, keeping the critical financial position of the State in mind, the same is limited from 1-1-2001 in the time-scales of pay attached to the posts in which the petitioners are working. As far as monetary benefit is concerned, keeping the critical financial position of the State in mind, the same is limited from 1-1-2001 in the time-scales of pay attached to the posts in which the petitioners are working. The respondents are given twelve weeks of time to pay the difference in wages i. e. , after deducting the pay the petitioners are receiving as on today from the pay they have to receive from 1-1-2001 after they are fitted in the regular time-scales of pay attached to the posts in which they are working. ( 15 ) AS far as the petitioners in whose favour the relief of relaxation was refused only on the ground that they were appointed after 25-11-1993, it is made clear that the respondents shall not terminate their services for the sake of termination, if there is need for continuance of their services. As and when vacancies arise in regular sanctioned posts, their cases shall be considered for regularisation. In spite of the above directions, if the authorities concerned terminate the services of these petitioners, they shall have a preferential claim over freshers as and when appointments are made and without absorbing these petitioners, no freshers shall be appointed. However, the very fact that they are continuing in service from the date of appointment till this date shows the existence of a need for their continuance in service. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, all these Writ Petitions are allowed with the above directions except the petition of petitioners 6,9,13,14, 15,16,17,18 and 20 in W. P. No. 3391 of 1998 who were appointed after 25-11-1993. No costs.