JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—All the writ petitions are being taken up together as they raise common questions of law and fact. At the time of hearing of this petition, it was submitted on behalf of the parties that pleadings filed in CWP No. 644 of 2002 be taken as such in all other connected cases and this prayer of the parties was allowed. 2. Petitioners in all these cases are aggrieved by the action of the respondents contained in Annexures PE and PG. For ready reference, both these annexures are extracted hereinbelow : Annexure PE Sub : Constitution of society for the activities of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. This is with reference to letters of even number dated 27.12.2000 and subsequent reminders dated 24.6.2001 and 13.3.2001 on the above cited subject. 2. The Government has decided that a society may be constituted in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, with the objective of creating the necessary incentive for optimum utilization of the infrastructure of the Directorate. For this purpose, the society will be allowed to retain all fees generated through the activities of the Directorate and from the utilization of the infrastructure of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the Directorate and to meet such costs for which budgetary allocations are inadequate or unavailable. 3. With regard to the employees working in the Directorate of Mountaineering and allied Sports, it is informed that in order to ensure compliance with the directions of Honble High Court in the CWP No. 74 of 2001 dated April 9, 2001, Capt. Pandhir Singh Salhuria and others v. State of H.P. and others, the following procedure may be adopted: (i) All the employees of the Directorate shall be offered the option of either working for the fulfillment of the objective of the society or to be absorbed in some other department or to leave the service of the Government. (ii) Details of those employees who opt not to work for the society and prefer to seek absorption in some other department, shall be intimated to the Finance Department for reallocating against vacant posts in other department as per the surplus pool policy of the Government Cases of employees opting to leave the service of Government may be processed as per the Government rules and regulations in this regard. (iii) The employees who opt to work for the fulfillment of these objective of the society will continue to be governed by the same terms and conditions of service and the procedure regarding payment of emoluments and other benefits as heretofore. In other words:— (a) Such employees shall continue to be employees of the Government in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. Actual employment of such employees in society shall be deemed to be on permanent/deputation basis. (b) They will be eligible for all pay and pensionary benefits in the same manner as they had before exercised their option. (c) They will be entitled for all promotional avenues as admissible to them under the R&P rules before exercise of their option. (d) All pay and attendant benefits will continue to be drawn as per budgetary allocations from the treasury. (iv) The above position as at (ii) and (iii) may be brought to the notice of all employees while seeking their option to be exercised within a period of one month. It may be clarified that failure to exercise an option will be construed as agreement to work for the fulfillment of the objectives of the society. 4. The proposed society shall incorporate in its bye laws provisions necessary to give effect to para 3(i) and para 3(iii)(a) of this letter. 5. You are requested to take action with regard to constitution and registration of the society and also with regard to obtaining the options from the employees and taking further action in this regard as detailed above, at an early date." Annexure PG Sub : Constitution of Society for the activities of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, Manali. This is with reference to letters of even number dated 27th December, 2000 and 3rd September, 2001 on the above cited subject. I am directed to inform you that the Government in partial suppression of the orders conveyed vide letter dated 3rd September, 2001 has decided as under: (a) A society may be constituted in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, Manali to assist and to complement the activities of the Institute. The Society will be allowed to retain all fee generated through the activities of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the department and to meet such costs for budgetary allocations are inadequate or non-available. The Society will be allowed to retain all fee generated through the activities of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the department and to meet such costs for budgetary allocations are inadequate or non-available. (b) The Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to function as such and all employees will remain Government employees in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. (c) All existing staff and existing cost will continue to be borne by the Government budget. In future appointments if any, will be made by the Society on contract basis and will be paid by the Society. (d) The State Government will not transfer any assets to the Society. All the assets will continue to be the assets of the Government. However, any income generated through use of the assets will belong to the Society and will be retained to it. The Society will enhance its activities and raise resources and the Government budgetary support from the year 2002-03 may be reduced accordingly based on earning level. (e) There will not be any addition of staff in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports and the present staff strength will be sealed. Future appointments, if any, will be made by the society after obtaining Government (Secretary, Youth Services and Sports Services and Sports) approval in all such cases where the period is more than three months in a year. New appointment of staff will be that of the society and not of the Government and shall be only on contract basis. (f) The matter regarding obtaining options of the present employees will be treated as closed since they will continue to be employees of the Government. You are requested to take action regarding constitution and registration of the Society immediately..." Besides other reliefs, they have prayed for quashing both these annexures. 3. Admitted facts of this case are that Himalayan Institute of Mountaineering and Adventure Sports, as per petitioners was founded by the then Prime Minister of India late Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the year 1961. It was given the name for Western Himalayan Mountaineering Institute in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. It was established to provide adventure activities like Sking, Mountaineering, Rock climbing, Trekking, Water Sports, Adventure and Mountain Rescue Courses etc. It was given the name for Western Himalayan Mountaineering Institute in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. It was established to provide adventure activities like Sking, Mountaineering, Rock climbing, Trekking, Water Sports, Adventure and Mountain Rescue Courses etc. This Institute was established at Manali having adequate infrastructure, like Hostels for the trainees and an Auditorium, Workshop, Administrative Block and Residential Block etc. This Directorate runs number of Centers in the Districts of Kangra, Chamba, Lahual and Spiti and Shimla. 4. On 27.12.2000, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification converting the aforesaid Directorate into a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the name and style of Himalayan Institute of Mountaineering and Adventure Sports. This action of the official respondents was challenged before this Court, in CWP No. 74 of 2001, titled Capt. Randhir Singh Salhuria and others v. State of H.P. and others. This writ petition was allowed on 9.4.2001. Operative portion of this judgment was as under: "For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion the petition deserves to be allowed to the extent that no action can be taken for transferring the petitioners or sending them to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I860, except in accordance with Jaw. It is, however, clarified that it is open to the State to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petition is allowed to the above extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." A copy of this judgment is attached as Annexure PD with this writ petition. Petitioners claim that with a view to over-reach Annexure PD, impugned annexures supra have been issued by the official respondents. 5. Petitioners further claim that after the passing of the aforesaid judgment, respondent No. 2 issued Annexure PE supra. Since the terms contained in it were not acceptable, therefore, reply was submitted by all the petitioners, copy of sample reply is Annexure PF. Thus they objected to the terms contained in Annexure PE. It was thereafter that on 30.1.2001 Annexure PG was issued by respondent No. 2. 6. In the aforesaid background, with a view to advance the case of the petitioner in this writ petition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that his clients being employees under the State of H.P., cannot be called upon to serve the Society. It was thereafter that on 30.1.2001 Annexure PG was issued by respondent No. 2. 6. In the aforesaid background, with a view to advance the case of the petitioner in this writ petition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that his clients being employees under the State of H.P., cannot be called upon to serve the Society. Reason being that once they agree to do so, constitutional protection available to them under Article 311 of the Constitution is removed. He submitted that Annexure PE has been issued with a view to nullify the effect of judgment given by this Court in CWP No. 74 of 2001 supra. According to him when Directorate is in existence there was no occasion for having asked for options from his clients. Similarly Mr. Sharma urged that despite vide Annexure PG his clients are being asked to serve the Society which they are not bound to serve nor can they be compelled to serve, unless they either voluntarily agree or are sent on deputation, that too with their prior concurrence in accordance with law. 7. It is also pointed out by him that the so called Memorandum of Association of the Himalayan Institute of Mountaineering and Adventure Sports is concerned, it is not in accordance with law i.e. the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thus the very existence of-the Society is bad in law. According to him requisitions for employment are being sent by the Directorate, but employment is being offered by the Society, this further strengthens his submission that it is the society who is going to control and manage the affairs of the Institute for all purposes and what has been pleaded by the respondents is a mere eye wash. Earnings of the Institute are being deposited in the account of the society which is impermissible in law. This entire action has been initiated by respondents No. 1 to 3 at the instance of respondent No. 4 who is the Director of the Institute, and is ineligible as per relevant rules governing the recruitment to this post. Thus on all these grounds he has prayed for allowing the writ petition. 8. This entire action has been initiated by respondents No. 1 to 3 at the instance of respondent No. 4 who is the Director of the Institute, and is ineligible as per relevant rules governing the recruitment to this post. Thus on all these grounds he has prayed for allowing the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General by referring to the pleadings as well as categorical stand of the respondents at the very outset submitted that so far petitioners are concerned, as in the past, they shall continue to be the "public servants" in the Directorate of Himalayan Institute of Mountaineering and Adventure Sports. Their service conditions will be protected under the rules by which they are being governed now and would continue to be protected in future also. Whatever admissible benefits are available to the petitioners would be granted to them in future as per law. Thus protection available to a public servant as per provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would be available to all the petitioners. No change in service conditions is being made in their case. Thus according to him this writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves dismissal. 9. With a view to advance the case of the respondents, he submitted that no doubt society has been constituted. But this has been done with a view to supplement the activities of the Directorate. No change in service conditions is being made in their case. Thus according to him this writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves dismissal. 9. With a view to advance the case of the respondents, he submitted that no doubt society has been constituted. But this has been done with a view to supplement the activities of the Directorate. With a view to show that society was in fact supplementing the activities of the Directorate without in any manner hampering those he gave the strength of trainees from 1.4.2002 to 22.6.2002, as well as of the year 2001 and 3 years immediately preceding it which are as under:— Strength of Trainees from 1st April to 22nd June, 2002 Activity Manali Narkanda Bharmour Dharamshala Pongdam Hatkoti Total Trekking 2417 1380 1341 497 0 0 Adventure 708 40 0 131 0 0 Basic Mountaineering 400 0 0 0 0 0 Advance Mounta eering 12 0 0 0 0 0 Special Sking 40 0 0 0 0 0 Water Sports 0 0 0 0 300 159 Total 3577 1420 1341 628 300 159 7425 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 up to 22nd June Total trained dur ing the year 2972 2525 2672 4307 7425 Total number of youth employed all over Himachal on daily wages for 3 months (April to June 2002) 268 Thus he emphasised that so far plea of the petitioners that their service conditions are being in any manner effected is a mere illusion and nothing else. It was also pointed out by him that salaries of the petitioners and other employees of the Directorate are duly protected as per rules are being disbursed and will continue to be disbursed under the authority of Government of H.P. All their deductions etc., would be and are being made as per rules governing the same. In these circumstances, according to him it is not understood as to on what basis, grievance has been made by the petitioners in all these cases. 10. So far framing and constitution of society is concerned, since it was given up in CWP No. 74 of 2001, it operates as res judicata or in any cause as an estoppel in these proceedings. Thus he urged that petitioners may not be heard on the constitution of the society. Regarding challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4, two fold prayer was made by the learned Advocate General. Thus he urged that petitioners may not be heard on the constitution of the society. Regarding challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4, two fold prayer was made by the learned Advocate General. Firstly, petitioners have no locus standi to question the same, alternatively forum is not this Court as it relates to service matter. Thus they must go to the H.R State Administrative Tribunal to get relief, if they are entitled to it in law. Reference was made to the pleadings filed by the respondents. 11. For ready reference relevant pleadings from the reply of the respondents are extracted herein below : Preliminary Objections 2. That the State Government has taken a decision to establish a Society within the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports without affection the service conditions of the existing regular staff of the Directorate. This decision has been taken by the Government with the broader objective to assist and compliment the activities of the Directorate. In this regard it will be appropriate to submit here that the formation of the Society within the Directorate will not affect the service conditions of the employees but it will definitely enhance the over all growth and development of the organisation and its employees. The Society has been permitted to retain all fee generated through the activities of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the department and to meet such costs for which budgetary allocations are inadequate or not being made. In case such a society was not permitted to be constituted, the department would not have been in a position to retain the income generated on account of various activities and also not in a position to utilize this income for the welfare of the department. By this decision, more autonomy has been given to the department to take appropriate decisions at its own level. It has worked as a successful model system and has already set a record in the short duration of three months. The Directorate has already trained more than 8,000 trainees in the span of only three months against 2500 to 3000 trainees trained during the whole year. 3. While taking the above decision, the Government has decided to protect all the rights of the employees working in the Directorate. The Directorate has already trained more than 8,000 trainees in the span of only three months against 2500 to 3000 trainees trained during the whole year. 3. While taking the above decision, the Government has decided to protect all the rights of the employees working in the Directorate. The Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to function as such and all employees will remain Government employees in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. There is no change in the aim and scope of the work of the Department with the establishment of the Society within the Directorate. In this regard, it is submitted that all the expenditure of existing staff and existing cost will continue to be borne by the State Government. Hence, the petitioners have no cause to challenge the decision of the Government and as such the writ petition deserves to be rejected straightway. Reply on merits Para No. 6 Contents of this para are denied to the extent that the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports was converted into a Society. In this regard it is submitted that although the Government had taken a decision vide letter No. YSS. A (2)-l/2000 dated 27.12.2000 to convert it into society, however, the same was not implemented as per the directions of the Honble High Court. No society was ever constituted/registered by converting office of the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports and the said Directorate continues to be in existence and will continue to function as Government department in future also. Para 8 Para admitted to the extent that letter Annexure PE was issued on the directions given by the Honble High Court in the judgment Annexure PD. However, subsequently Annexure PE i.e. Government letter No. YSS-A(2)-l/2001, dated 3rd September, 2001 was superceded/modified vide letter No. even, dated 30.1.2002, as under: (a) A society may be constituted in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, Manali to assist and to complement the activities of the Institute. The Society will be allowed to retain all fee generated through the activities of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the department and to meet such costs for which budgetary allocations are inadequate or unavailable. The Society will be allowed to retain all fee generated through the activities of the Directorate and to use the resources so generated for meeting the expenses required to enhance the productivity of the department and to meet such costs for which budgetary allocations are inadequate or unavailable. (b) The Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to function as such and all employees will remain Government employees in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. (c) All existing staff and existing cost will continue to be borne by the Government budget. In future, appointments, if any, will be made by the Society on contract basis and will be paid by the Society. (d) The State Government will not transfer any assets to the Society. All the assets will continue to be the assets of the Government. However, any income generated through use of the assets will belong to the society and will be retained by it. The society will enhance its activities and raise resources and the Government budgetary support from the year 2002-03 may be reduced accordingly based on earning level. (e) There will not be any addition of staff in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports and the present staff strength will be sealed. Future appointments, if any, will be made by the society after obtaining Government (Secretary, Yough Services and Sports) approval in all such cases where the period is more than three months in a year. New appointment of staff will be that of the society and not of the Government and shall be only on contract basis. (f) The matter regarding obtaining options of the present employees will be treated as closed since! they will continue to be employees of the Government. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that service conditions of the regular staff have not been changed in any manner. Para 9 This para now calls no comments in view of submissions made in para-8 above. However, it is submitted that the State Government has already reviewed its decision with regard to obtaining of options from the employees. As per the revised Government decision of Annexure "PG" para "b", the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to function as such and all employees will remain Government employees in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. As per the revised Government decision of Annexure "PG" para "b", the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to function as such and all employees will remain Government employees in the Department of Mountaineering and Allied Sports. In view of this decision, the matter regarding obtaining options from employees stands closed as all employees of the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports will continue to remain Government employees. Para 10 The contents of this para are denied. The Society has been registered on 1st March, 2002. The employees are performing same functions as were being performed by them right from the inception of the DMAS and prior to the formation of the Society. It is incorrect that the petitioners have been employed for the services of the society. There is no change in the status of the employees even after the formation of the society, and at the same time there is no change in the aim, scope and the nature of the work of the DMAS. As already submitted, society has been formed with a broader objective of giving more autonomy to the institution to enhance its professionalism, to generate resources for its development and to retain income so generated for further development and expansion. Para 19 Contents of this para are not admitted. The total strength of the sanctioned staff of the Directorate is 116 which include 17 vacant posts in various categories. The above strength of 116 will continue to remain as such even after the formation of the society subject to the rights of the Government. The nucleus of 116 existing staff strength (including vacant posts) will be maintained in future also and the employees will continue to draw benefits as per R&P rules hereto fore. The resultant vacancies arising due to retirement resignation, death etc. in the Directorate will continue to be filled up as per the existing R&P rules and the incumbents so recruited will be the Government employees in all respects like existing employees as hitherto. The Government has only sealed existing staff strength of 116 employees in the department. In fact, after the society was constituted within the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, the State Government has already taken steps to fill up vacant posts. (a) One post of Sking Instructor in the pay scale of Rs. The Government has only sealed existing staff strength of 116 employees in the department. In fact, after the society was constituted within the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports, the State Government has already taken steps to fill up vacant posts. (a) One post of Sking Instructor in the pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200 has been advertised by H.R Subordinate Selection Board on 7th May 2002. (b) Post of Trekking Guide, Class-Ill, which was lying vacant due to retirement in the Directorate has been filled by promotion and Shri Govind Ram has been promoted from the post of Chowkidar (Class IV) on 30th March, 2002 to the post of Trekking Guide (Class-Ill). (c) Under the "Assured Career Progression Scheme" number of DMAS employees were granted proficiency increments on their having completed 8/16/24 years of service on 3rd April, 2002. Para 20 Contents of this para are not admitted. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the total strength of the sanctioned staff is 116 which includes 17 posts in various categories. The above strength of 116 posts will continue to remain as such even after formation of the Society. Contract appointment was not made against the existing vacancies of the instructor. In this regard it is submitted that appointment of Shri Narender Thakur has been made purely on contract basis for 89 days by the Society as per its requirements. Therefore, his appointment has not made against the existing vacancy in the Directorate. Appointment of instructor on contract basis has been done as per the rules of the society and the President of the Society is fully competent to make such appointments as per the provisions laid down in the memorandum of the society as well as in accordance with the decision of the Government conveyed vide letter No. YSS-A(2)-l/2000, dated 30th January, 2002. Further it is submitted that Mr. Bhupender Sharma was never informed by the Department that there was no vacant post of Mountaineering Instructor in the Directorate. However, he was advised to apply for Visiting Instructor on temporary basis to be engaged by the Society as per its requirement. The system to engage temporary instructors and other essential staff required to conduct the courses is being followed right from the inception of the Directorate, however,/the said temporary staff is now being engaged by the society. However, he was advised to apply for Visiting Instructor on temporary basis to be engaged by the Society as per its requirement. The system to engage temporary instructors and other essential staff required to conduct the courses is being followed right from the inception of the Directorate, however,/the said temporary staff is now being engaged by the society. (V and VI) Contents of these paras are totally wrong hence denied. However, it is submitted that the petitioners as well as remaining 40 regular staff of the Directorate will continue to be governed as per existing Recruitment as well as Promotion Rules, and all future vacancies in the existing strength falling in category of promotion will continue to be filled by promotion in accordance with the R & P Rules. In this context it is absolutely wrong that the petitioners will not be promoted. It is also submitted that as per previous practice the resultant vacancies arising due to requirement, resignation, death etc. in the Directorate the posts will continue to be filled in as per the existing R & P rules. Recently one post of Trekking Guide which fell vacant due to the retirement of Shri Chobe Ram has been filled by way of promotion from the category of Chowkidar. The promotion of the employees in the Directorate will be directly linked with the number of posts available. In addition to the promotional avenues, the existing employees are also covered under the "Assured Career Progression Scheme" i.e. grant of proficiency increments on completion of 8/16/24 years of service. viii That the contents of this para are denied. It is submitted that the society has been constituted within the Directorate and there is no change in the aim and scope of the organisation. As already submitted, Society has been formed with a broader objective of giving more autonomy to the institution to enhance its activities, to generate resources for its development and to retain income so generated for future development and expansion. It is further submitted that institutions were given to the staff which is routine administrative procedure for the registration of the society. For smooth functioning of the society, an executive committee has been constituted having members from different categories of staff in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports on rotation basis. It is further submitted that institutions were given to the staff which is routine administrative procedure for the registration of the society. For smooth functioning of the society, an executive committee has been constituted having members from different categories of staff in the Directorate of Mountaineering and Allied Sports on rotation basis. By virtue of the post and seniority in the respective categories the officials were proposed as ex-officio members and nominated members for a period of two years and their rotation shall be as per seniority in their category of three senior most members. Hence respondent No. 4 has not played any havoc with the career of employees of the Directorate, contention of the petitioner is wrong and misleading. (g)(i)(ii) Contents of these sub-paras are denied. The respondent No. 4 is not indulging in misadventure. He is qualified tp hold the post of Director under the provision of recruitment and promotion rules. In this regard it is submitted that as per the rules the post of Director is to be filled either by direct recruitment having the qualification of (1) Bachelors degree from a recognized University or its equivalent. (2) Qualified : (a) Basic course in Mountaineering with Grade (b) Advance course in Mountaineering (c) Method of Instruction course from Mountaineering Institute Manali or from HMI Darjeeling or from NIM Uttarkashi or from any approved Institute in India or abroad, (3) Must have participated in at least 4 Expeditions in the Himalayas to a 20,000 ft. or higher peaks or Army Officers of the rank of Major and above who have qualified the Basic and Advance Mountain Warfare course with grading Al and should have been Instructors at the High Altitude Warfare School, (4) Five years administrative experience. The present incumbent is an Army Officer fulfilling all the essential qualifications as per the R & P rules. The incumbent has held this post earlier also for five years from 1990 to 1995 on deputation basis. The present appointment is on contract basis. He is one of the most successful Mountaineering Expedition Leader having led over a dozen Expeditions at National and International level. He has the distinction of thorough professional in Adventure Tourism in the country. The respondent No. 4 is a renowned mountaineer who has scaled more than one dozen peaks of higher than 20,000 ft. He is one of the most successful Mountaineering Expedition Leader having led over a dozen Expeditions at National and International level. He has the distinction of thorough professional in Adventure Tourism in the country. The respondent No. 4 is a renowned mountaineer who has scaled more than one dozen peaks of higher than 20,000 ft. The respondent No. 4 as a track record of more than 25 years in promotion and furthering Adventure Sports. He has been Instructor at High Altitude Warfare School (Gulmarg) of Army from 1980 to 1984 and Principal of the prestigious Himalayan Mountaineering Institute (HMI) Darjeeling from 1995 to 1999. Hence respondent No. 4 is fully qualified for the post of Director. (g)(iii) & (iv) Contents of these sub-paras are wrong hence emphatically denied. As already submitted the society has been constituted as per the Government policy decision within the Directorate and there is no change in the activities of the Directorate and status of the employees even after formation of the Society, will remain the same. The employees of the Directorate are performing the same functions as were being performed by them right from its inception. Hence respondent No. 4 has not done any misadventure, as alleged in these sub-paras." 12. So far engagement of respondent No. 4 is concerned it was pointed out by learned Advocate General that he is a man of eminence and was working as a Director of this Institute earlier also, of which fact all the petitioners are well aware. Despite this for reasons best known to them they have chosen to challenge his engagement that too on contract basis in this writ petition when they are well aware that this Court lacks jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 13. Learned Advocate General pointed out that stand of State Government is very clear so far status of the petitioners as public servants is concerned. However, he clarified that there is no prohibition in law or otherwise which stops his clients to abolish the Directorate above referred and its closure. And then dispense with the services of the petitioners. He further pointed out that petitioners have no legally valid, muchless tenable claim in the present writ petition which may give them a right to file or maintain the same. And then dispense with the services of the petitioners. He further pointed out that petitioners have no legally valid, muchless tenable claim in the present writ petition which may give them a right to file or maintain the same. He further pointed out that present writ petitions are wholly misconceived, and in no case petitioners are entitled to any relief. 14. With a view to support case of the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel referred to a few precedents besides placing reliance on Annexure PD, the decision of this Court in CWP No. 74 of 2001, dated 21.4.2001. He also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by this court while allowing this writ petition in the case of State of Mysore v. H. Papanna Gowda and another, AIR 1971 SC 191 and S.K. Saha v. Prern Prakash Agarwal and others, (1994) 1 SCC 431, besides other decisions which are being referred to hereinafter. 15. In K.C. Thomas v. R.L. Gadeock and another, AIR 1970 Patna 163, matter concerning the legal character of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as well as its right to sue and be sued by was under consideration. While holding that society registered under the Act enjoys the status of legal entity, it can sue and be sued. It was further held that persons serving under the society are its employees under the control of its Board of Governors and service conditions are regulated by the rules and regulations framed by the society. Since he holds the post under the society, as such protection of Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be claimed by him, as he does not hold civil post either under the union or the State. In this case it was further held that dismissal of an employee of Sainik School Society registered under the aforesaid Act by the Principal of the school, cannot be challenged by him in the writ petition because he does not hold a civil post. 16. In this case it was further held that dismissal of an employee of Sainik School Society registered under the aforesaid Act by the Principal of the school, cannot be challenged by him in the writ petition because he does not hold a civil post. 16. In view of what has been stated on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 at the time of hearing, and stand in their reply to the writ petition, we are satisfied that there is going to be no change so far petitioners are concerned regarding their holding civil posts under the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such this decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. We may reiterate that it is no where stand of the respondents that despite Annexure PG, as well as what has been stated in their reply, part of which has been extracted hereinabove, still the petitioners would in any manner become employees of the society, so as to deprive them of the benefit of service rules and regulations framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and protection available to them under Article 311 thereof. 17. In U.P. Medical College Medical Education Teachers Association (UPMA), Gorakhpur and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1999 Allahabad 324, was the other decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the contentions urged by him. What had happened in this case was that State Government had transferred all the Government Medical Colleges to autonomous societies and overall control of the society remained with the Government. Recruitment of teaching staff was not required to be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, and highest decision making body constituted was Board of Governors, and Government was to frame bye laws through a committee nominated under a Government order. In this background what was held and is relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition was as under:— "23. The impugned order dated 2.4.1998 itself constituted a Board of Governors as a highest decision making body. The impugned order further requires the Government to prepare model bye-laws and society has no option but to adopt the same without demur. Obvious it is that the society had no liberty to frame bye-laws. It was to be by the committee nominated under the impugned order, even before formation of society. The impugned order further requires the Government to prepare model bye-laws and society has no option but to adopt the same without demur. Obvious it is that the society had no liberty to frame bye-laws. It was to be by the committee nominated under the impugned order, even before formation of society. Entire conduct of the Government was more of bulldozing against statutory provisions." In this background writ petition was allowed. Again when a reference is made to this decision, it is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case, especially keeping in view the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 referred to hereinabove. As such this decision does not in any manner advance case of the petitioners. 18. Reference was also made to a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111. By referring to the majority view in this case, Mr. Sharma pointed out that creation of society and allowing the same to run the institute clearly supports the case of the petitioners. We have not been able to appreciate this submission in view of the facts elaborated hereinabove on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, particularly the stand of the respondents in their reply. 19. So far reference to the decision of this court in CWP 74 of 2001, dated 9th April, 2001 in the case of Captain Randhir Singh Saluria and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is concerned, we find that it also does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioners. 20. Reason being that so far formation of society is concerned, what was held by the Court has been extracted hereinabove, as such challenge by the petitioners regarding its Constitution is without any basis. So far petitioners are concerned, their services as civil servants under the State of Himachal Pradesh, together with Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the same are adequately protected, as noted hereinabove. In Annexure PG it is specifically mentioned that so far matter regarding obtaining options of the present employees (petitioners) was to be treated as closed and they were to continue to be employees of the State Government. We were unable to understand as to what is the subsisting grievance of the petitioners so as to enable them to maintain this writ petition. 21. We were unable to understand as to what is the subsisting grievance of the petitioners so as to enable them to maintain this writ petition. 21. Again when a reference is made to the decision of this Court in CWP No. 74 of 2001, we are satisfied that the court had ordered that "except in accordance with law no action can be taken for transferring the petitioners or sending them to society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860". (Emphasis supplied) 22. Thus a reading of this decision authorises respondent No. 1 in transferring or sending the petitioners to the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in accordance with law. This judgment has attained finality inter parties. Fact remains that said respondent No. 1 has clarified its stand despite the decision in CWP No. 74 of 2001 supra, as referred to hereinabove. 23. Cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that in no case petitioners are being sent to the society. Rather they are being retained as civil servants under the State of Himachal Pradesh giving due protection to them so far their conditions of service as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules together with all other benefits including those under Article 311 • of the Constitution. All these benefits have been kept intact. In this view of the matter no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. H. Papanna Gowda and another and S.K. Saha v. Prem Prakash Agarwal and others (supra). 24. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioners that income generated by the institute is being deposited in the account of the society, does not also improve their case. Reason being that where the money goes is none of their concern. The only thing that has to be ensured is that all the petitioners , get their emoluments as per the Rules and Regulations governing the same in time and whatever deductions etc. are made, are transmitted to the proper accounts/heads. As such this plea is hereby rejected. 25. So far challenge to Annexure PG is concerned, it is also untenable because as employer, respondents No. 1 to 3 have acted fairly in this matter. are made, are transmitted to the proper accounts/heads. As such this plea is hereby rejected. 25. So far challenge to Annexure PG is concerned, it is also untenable because as employer, respondents No. 1 to 3 have acted fairly in this matter. Otherwise it is within the exclusive domain of the State Government to decide as to which of its departments need to be closed and how to deal with the employees in the event of such closure. Similarly in the face of stand of the respondents in their reply to the writ petitions as well as in view of the contents of Annexure PG extracted hereinabove, and above all in view of the submissions urged at the time of hearing of this writ petition by the learned Advocate General, in our considered view, there is no change in the service conditions of the petitioners as public servants under the State of Himachal Pradesh. So far ineligibility of respondent No. 4 to hold the office of Director of Institute is concerned, we are not going into the same. Reason being that grievance, if any, can be projected by the petitioners before appropriate Forum. In case petitioners or anyone of them decides to challenge his such engagement, at that point of time respondents will be free to question the locus standi also of such a person to maintain such an action. 26. No other point is urged. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in all these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 28. Registry is directed to place copy of this order in all other connected files. CMP No. 864 of 2000 29. No orders in view of the orders passed in the main matter. Stands finally disposed of.-