JUDGMENT Ashok A. Desai, C.J. and P.C. Verma, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. D. Agrawala, Additional Solicitor General. 2. The petitioner Dr. D.V. Singh, holding the post of Director of Indian Institute of Technology, has filed the instant petition to challenge clause 5A (e) of the Ordinance. According to him, this clause, as argued by Mr. Jain creates a hostile discrimination amongst the employees engaged by the then Roorkee University. 3. The Roorkee University by the impugned Ordinance has been converted into Indian Institute of Technology. Under clause 5A (e), the petitioner has availed the deemed provisions and continued as Director of the newly converted I.I.T. Having availed the benefit of the Ordinance, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the vires of Clause (e) referred to above. 4. Even otherwise on merits, Mr. Jain contended before us that Vice-Chancellor is like any other employee as referred to in Clause (d) and, therefore, without there being any basis, Clause (e) had carried a discrimination, which is inadmissible in view of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On going through the nature of the office and functions of the Vice-Chancellor, the submission is totally untenable as the Vice-Chancellor cannot be equated to be and at par with other employees of the University. Even otherwise, the Vice-Chancellor, according to the nature and function of his office, is an authority of the University. He is also entrusted with the power to take decision. Therefore, he cannot in strict sense be a person employed as envisaged in Clause (d). Moreover, the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor is altogether different than recruitment of the employees as envisaged in Clause (d). 5. Mr. Jain has placed reliance on a decision of Dinnapatt Sadasiva Reddi v. Chancellor, Osmanta University and others. AIR 1967 SC 1305. We have carefully examined the judgment. We are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not attracted for its application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In view of this, there is sufficient basis and logic to differentiate other employees from the Vice-Chancellor. The submission is therefore, untenable. 7. Even otherwise, we are reported that the petitioner got his name sponsored through one of eminent scientists for being considered as Director on regular basis. 8. 6. In view of this, there is sufficient basis and logic to differentiate other employees from the Vice-Chancellor. The submission is therefore, untenable. 7. Even otherwise, we are reported that the petitioner got his name sponsored through one of eminent scientists for being considered as Director on regular basis. 8. In view of all this, the petition is without any merit. The same is dismissed. 9. We are tried to be persuaded by Sri R.D. Agrawala, Additional Solicitor General, to saddle the petitioners with costs. However, after hearing Mr. Jain, we could not be further persuaded in this behalf any further. As such, we do not saddle any costs on the petitioners.