Judgment N. K. SODHI, J. 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of twenty one Civil Writ Petitions Nos.8946, 8959, 8994, 9034, 9344, 9364, 10596, 12388, 13599, 19009, 20173 of 2002, 180, 244, 711, 1423, 1456, 2881, 2895, 3234, 3246 and 3259 of 2003 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the arguments were addressed in CWP 180 of 2003, facts are being taken from this case. 2. Satpal, respondent had been employed as a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Guru jambheshwar University, Hisar (for short the university ). He was appointed as a daily wager for a period of 89 days w. e. f. November 9, 199 5/02/1996. This appointment was further extended from time to time and by letter dated 3/07/1997 the Vice Chancellor again appointed him on contract basis for another period of 89 days making it clear that his engagement shall not entitle him to claim regularisation of his services or even a regular pay scale. The respondent had also been informed "that in case of vacancy having been filled up by a normal procedure before the expiry of period of above contract, you shall cease to be in position forthwith". It is, thus, clear that the University was making regular appointment to the posts of clerks and pending such regular selection, some daily wagers had been appointed and some on contract basis for the purpose of carrying on the office work and the condition of their employment was that they would continue to work till regular selections were made. It is not in dispute that the regular selections have been made in which Satpal singh respondent also participated but he could not be selected as he failed to qualify even in the typing test. When the regularly selected persons were appointed, the services of the temporary employees like Satpal Singh respondent were terminated. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Hisar. On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the University and Satpal Singh workman filed their statements of claim. When the regularly selected persons were appointed, the services of the temporary employees like Satpal Singh respondent were terminated. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Hisar. On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the University and Satpal Singh workman filed their statements of claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the University it was pleaded that the workman had been employed on daily wages in the first instance and thereafter he was given a contractual employment with a clear stipulation that such employment was to continue till regular selection was made and since the workman could not get selected in the regular selection his services were properly terminated in accordance with the terms contained in the letter of his appointment. It was also pleaded on behalf of the University that the termination of the workman did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act)inasmuch as his services had been terminated in accordance with the terms contained in the letter of appointment and, therefore the provisions of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act were attracted. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: "1. Whether termination of the service of satpal is justified and in order? If not, along with reinstatement to what amount of back wages he is entitled to? 2. Whether the respondent is not industry? 3. Whether Satpal has no cause of action, nor locus standi, as alleged? 4. Whether case falls under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act? 5. Relief. " Issues 1, 3 and 4 were taken up together and on a consideration of the material placed before the Labour Court it came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of Satpal Singh workman was retrenchment within the meaning of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act and it was neither in order nor justified. In view of this finding, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman and against the university holding that the former was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 75% back wages. It is against this award that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of this finding, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman and against the university holding that the former was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 75% back wages. It is against this award that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition and are of the view that the impugned award cannot be sustained. As is clear from the facts noticed above, the workman had been engaged on daily wages and thereafter on contractual basis pending regular selection to the post of a clerk. He participated in the regular selection but failed to qualify even in typing tests. He was therefore not selected. When the regularly selected persons were appointed, the services of the workman were terminated. We are clearly of the view that such a termination was in accordance with the terms contained in letter of appointment. Such a termination falls within the exception contained in Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and, therefore, it did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court grossly erred in law in holding that the termination amounted to retrenchment and that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had to be complied with. As already observed, the termination of the services of the workman was in terms of the stipulation contained in the letter of appointment and, therefore, it was outside the ambit of retrenchment. This being so, there was no question of complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are contrary to the plain language of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the act and cannot, therefore, be sustained. The findings of the Labour Court in paragraph 14 of the award, to say the least, are perverse it being noticed that the workman could not qualify the typing test for regular selection and this according to the Labour Court was of no consequence and that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had to be complied with merely because he had been working earlier on daily wages and on contractual basis and had completed 240 days of service preceding his termination. In our opinion, if the services of a workman are terminated in terms of the stipulation contained in his letter of appointment, as has been done in the instant case, then the termination does not amount to retrenchment and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not attracted even if the workman had completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding the date of his termination. If the workman is allowed to continue or is ordered to be reinstated, the very purpose of the University making regular selections would be frustrated and unqualified candidates would find back door entries. We are clearly of the view that persons who could not get selected in the regular selection process carried out by the University, had no right to continue on their appointments particularly when there was a stipulation to that effect in their letters of appointments. 4. Shri G. K. Chatrath, learned senior counsel appearing for the workman in one of the writ petitions, referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhikku Ram V/s. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Rohtak 1996-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1126 to contend that the action of the employer in giving repeated appointments to the workman amounted to an unfair labour practice and, therefore, the award was liable to be quashed. We have gone through the judgment in Bhikku Rams case (supra) and find that the facts therein are different from those in the present case. In Bhikku Rams case the workman had been appointed on 29/06/1984 for 89 days initially and after giving notional breaks he was repeatedly appointed. This process continued till 24/06/1987 when his services were finally terminated. In the facts and circumstances of that case this Court came to the conclusion that the action of the management in giving notional breaks amounted to an unfair labour practice and that the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act had to be complied with. Since the employer deliberately employed the workman on 89 days basis repeatedly without regularising his services and terminated his employment, the court did not accept the plea that the termination was brought about on the expiry of the contract of employment so as to take it outside the purview of "retrenchment". Since the employer deliberately employed the workman on 89 days basis repeatedly without regularising his services and terminated his employment, the court did not accept the plea that the termination was brought about on the expiry of the contract of employment so as to take it outside the purview of "retrenchment". In the case in hand, the process of regular selection had been initiated and till it was going on the workman was employed on 89 days basis with a clear understanding that when the regular selection is made his services would be terminated. This is precisely what happened and when the regularly selected persons came to be appointed the workman was asked to leave the service. The workman also participated in the process of regular selection and the action of the University cannot be more fair than the one it adopted. The dictum of Bhikku Rams case (supra) is, therefore, not applicable. 5. No other point has been raised. 6. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned awards of the Labour court set aside and the orders passed by the university terminating the services of the workman upheld. There is no order as to costs.