JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.:—The present petition is filed by the principal of Lala Lajpatrai College of Commerce Economics inter alia challenging the order passed by the College Tribunal dated 26-6-2002 under which the respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in service and her termination has been held to be invalid. Few facts arising in the present case are briefly enumerated as under: 2.Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a lecturer in the petitioner No. 1 college on 26-6-1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. According to the appointment letter issued, the said appointment was for temporary period of one year because the appointment was in a reserved category and no reserved candidate being available the said appointment was effected. It is an admitted position that the said appointment though for a period of one year, was continued from year to year basis till the date of termination i.e. 11-4-2001. Thus, the respondent No. 1 was in service as a lecturer right upto 11-4-2001 on a year to year basis. 3.On 11-4-2001, the respondent No. 1 was terminated on the ground of her appointment being temporary for the academic year 2000-2001 and her services  are no more required. It is this order of termination which is the subject-matter of challenge before the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 64 of 2001 preferred by respondent No. 1. By the said appeal which was filed sometime in the month of July 2001, the respondent No. 1 had sought that the order of termination be quashed and set aside and the services of respondent No. 1 be continued and the University should grant necessary approval to her appointment till NET/SET qualification was acquired by respondent No. 1. It was also prayed that the respondent No. 1 should be reinstated with full back wages. The petitioner has filed its written statement and has resisted the said appeal. It was the case of the petitioner before the College Tribunal that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was temporary against the reserved category and it was also contended that the respondent No. 1 not having acquired the necessary qualification as prescribed by U.G.C. pertaining to NET/SET examination, the respondent No. 1 was not eligible for appointment to the post of lecturer and, therefore, she could not be reinstatement to the said job. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the College Tribunal by its order and judgment dated 26-6-2002 directed that the respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in the post held by respondent No. 1 from the date of termination of her services and the petitioner was also directed to pay her emoluments including back wages, if any. The College Tribunal by the said order has also directed the respondent No. 3 i.e. the University of Bombay to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent No. 1 from 9-6-2000 in accordance with the prevailing Rules. By the said order the Tribunal further directed that the respondent No. 4 who is the Government should reimburse the College the salary payable by the College to the respondent No. 1 in terms of the order passed by the College Tribunal. 4.It is this order dated 26-6-2002 which is the subject-matter of the writ petition before this Court. At the interim stage while admitting the petition, this Court by an order dated 10-12-2002 while staying the order passed by the Tribunal has inter alia stated that the petitioner i.e. the College authorities should make representations to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the employment of the 1st respondent within a period of 8 weeks to the State Government. The representations also should indicate the workload which will make it necessary for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider whether respondent No. 1 can be appointed by the petitioner as an additional lecturer. It was further observed in the said order dated 10-12-2002 that respondent No. 1 shall be appointed to the post of lecturer if respondent Nos. 2 and 3 considers the representation of the petitioner favourably and that the respondent No. 1 will be entitled to continue in the post in accordance with law by obtaining the requisite qualification under NET/SET as per the circular dated 18-10-2001. The respondent No. 1 inter alia contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court at the interim stage was not complied with by the petitioners and that petitioner took out a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No. 262 of 2003 inter alia seeking that the petitioner should be directed to comply with the direction given by this Court by order dated 10-12-2002. The said Notice of Motion No. 262 of 2003 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court who by an order dated 7-7-2003 recorded the statement of the Advocate appearing for the petitioners that they have complied with the order dated 10-12-2002 and that the respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in the job in accordance with the said interim order dated 10-12-2002. 5.My attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that even after the reinstatement in accordance with the order dated 10-12-2002 and even after making the statement as recorded in the order dated 7-7-2003 as recently as on 29-3-2004 the petitioners have once again terminated the services of the 1st respondent. The said letter dated 29-3-2004 which was produced by the respondent No. 1 was shown to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner who after taking instructions from his client who is present in Court has made a statement fairly stating that they are ready and willing to withdraw the said letter dated 29-3-2004 and that they shall abide by the orders passed by this Court subject to their right of appeal. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I do not propose to go into this controversy and the letter dated 29-3-2004 does not survive and will be treated as withdrawn by the petitioners. 6.However, so far as the controversy pertaining to the challenge or the order of the College Tribunal is concerned, the same is required to be dealt with and before me the learned Counsel for the petitioners appearing before me has raised two basic contentions. Firstly, it has been contended that the College Tribunal has given a finding on the basis of the GR dated on 18-10-2001 which was not in operation or in effect as on the date of termination i.e. 11-4-2001. It was thus contended that the said G.R. dated 18-10-2001 cannot be put in operation retrospectively and, therefore, the reliance placed on the G.R. dated 18-10-2001 was incorrect and thus the order dated 26-6-2002 passed by the College Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. It has been further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was temporary as indicated in the letter of appointment. It has been further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was temporary as indicated in the letter of appointment. It was further contended that the appointment order stipulates the mode of appointment as temporary not only because it is an appointment in the reserved category but also on the ground that the respondent No. 1 did not possess requisite qualification of NET/SET which is prescribed by the U.G.C. as the necessary qualification for the respondent No. 1 to continue as a lecturer. It was thus argued that if the appointment of respondent No. 1 is temporary pertaining to the said post, then, the respondent No. 1 has no right to continue in the said post till the age of superannuation, but at the maximum she can be continued on the said post for a period of six months from the date stipulated in the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 requiring her to clear the NET/SET examination. 7.The issue pertaining to the Resolution of 18-10-2001 has been the subject-matter of two Division Bench judgments of this Court. Before I deal with the judgments pertaining to the said Resolution of 18-10-2001, it is necessary to quote the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 which has been relied upon by both the parties in the present writ petition. The said Resolution dated 18-10-2001, inter alia, stipulates that all the employees who are appointed during the period 19-9-1991 to 11-12-1999 will be governed by the said Resolution and in particular it states as under: "Government Resolution.—The number of candidates who have not cleared NET/SET appointed to the post of lecturer between 19-9-1991 to 11-12-1999 in non-agricultural universities and colleges in the State is around 6000. Taking this into consideration, and also the efforts of the peoples representatives who have time and time again tried to have their services continued since these appointments are already 7 to 8 years old, and the consequent partial changes in the Government Resolution, as also the fact that students should not suffer for want of teachers is these lecturers are removed, the Government has taken a policy decision regarding those lecturers who have been appointed after 19-9-1991 and who have not cleared NET/SET, which is as follows: 1) Government Resolution, Higher and Technical Education and Employment Department No. NGC. 1794/7945/Vishi-4 dated 22-12-1995 hereby stands cancelled. 1794/7945/Vishi-4 dated 22-12-1995 hereby stands cancelled. 2) The services of those candidates appointed to the post of lecturers by the then Selection Committee during the period 19-9-1991 to 11-12-1999 in aided and non-aided colleges and institutions will be continued on the following conditions: a) All those lecturers (non NET/SET eligible) who have been appointed in this time period shall have to clear the NET/SET examination by December, 2003. b) All those lecturers who fail to clear NET/SET within the above mentioned time frame will not be entitled to any economic benefits (i.e. promotion, higher grades, selection grades) apart from increments approved for the post of lecturers. These lecturers will continue to be paid in the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 till requirement. c) These non-NET/SET eligible lecturers will be considered eligible for higher scales of pay as well as selection grades from the date they successfully pass the NET/SET. Accordingly, those lecturers who clear the NET/SET will also become eligible for promotion and their names will be included in the seniority list as per the Rules. d) The services of lecturers in Government colleges will be continued with the concurrence of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. e) Those lecturers who have been appointed after 11-12-1999 without having cleared NET/SET will not be entitled to this facility. Accordingly, their services shall be discontinued before the expiry of the probation period." The said Resolution further says that after the date 11-12-1999 no person will be appointed unless a person possesses the necessary qualification in respect of the same. 8.This Resolution of 18-10-2001 became the subject-matter of two Division Bench judgments of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the challenge to the said Resolution of 18-10-2001 in the case of (Vishwaprakash Laxman Sirsath and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 2002(4) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)664. By the said decision, the Division Bench has held Clause 2(b) which provides that those lecturers who fail to clear the NET/SET examination within the period December 2003 will not be entitled to any monetary benefits apart from increments accruing for the post of lecturer however, they will continue in service till retirement, as unconstitutional on the ground that it is not open for the Government to prescribe such a provision that a person is disentitled to the benefits of his service though he holds the post. In so far as other part of the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 is concerned, the same has been upheld. Paragraphs 2, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment which are relevant read as under : "25. The next sub-clause of Clause 2 viz., sub-clause (b) states that those lecturers who are not successful in obtaining the NET/SET qualifications by December, 2003 will be continued in service till their retirement and except the annual increment they shall not be entitled for any other benefits like financial benefits, promotion, senior grade or selection grade. It further states that till their retirement they shall be continued in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500. We certainly find fault with this Clause. When the Government has adopted the Regulations as framed by the Commission and if the Commission does not provide for such clause in its Regulations, the State Government cannot deviate from the said Regulation if the appointees upto 11th December, 1999 failed to obtain the NET/SET qualification by December, 2003. Undoubtedly they continued to be unqualified to hold the post of lecturer and they cannot be continued beyond December, 2003. The concession granted by the State Government in this clause is contrary to the Regulations framed by the Commission. In case there are institutions/universities who do not want to be covered under the U.G.C. Act, the position would be different but the Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 is in respect of all those aided, unaided colleges/institutions covered under the U.G.C. Act. Though education is a subject in the concurrent list i.e. List III under the Seventh Schedule (Serial No. 25), the State Governments power in that regard is subject to the provisos of Entry 63, 64 65 and 66 and List-I under the said Schedule. The Government adopted the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission in toto vide Government Resolutions dated 13th June, 2000 and retrospectively from 4th April, 2000. Under these circumstances, the Governments decision of granting concession, as set out in Clause 2(b) of the impugned Government Resolution cannot be sustained. 26. The Government adopted the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission in toto vide Government Resolutions dated 13th June, 2000 and retrospectively from 4th April, 2000. Under these circumstances, the Governments decision of granting concession, as set out in Clause 2(b) of the impugned Government Resolution cannot be sustained. 26. The impugned clause i.e. Clause 2(e) in the Government Resolution dated 18th of October, 2001, states that all the appointees to the post of Lecturer, whose appointments are after 11th December, 1999 (who have been classified in the three different groups, in this judgment) would not be eligible for the concessions granted in sub-clause (a) as well as (c) of Clause 2 and they are liable to be removed from service before the completion of their probationary period. None of the petitioners, who are before us, have been confirmed in service before the impugned Government Resolution was issued. The probationers do not have a vested right of being confirmed in service and more so when they do not meet the requirements of prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post which they hold. Vide Government Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 the State Government had made known its policy in no uncertain words to all the concerned, including the Universities and colleges/institutions and stated that the minimum qualifications required for the post of Lecturer, Reader, Professors, Assistant Director of Physical Education, Deputy Director of Physical Education, Directors of Physical Education, Assistant Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian and Registrars would be those as prescribed by the Commission and accepted by the State Government, from time to time. This Resolution had also referred to the scheme formulated by the Commission vide letter dated 24th December, 1998 wherein the minimum qualifications were stipulated for the post of lecturer under Clause 4.4.0. These qualifications were set out in the following words: "Goods academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter Grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign university. These qualifications were set out in the following words: "Goods academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter Grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign university. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the U.G.C." By the Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 the Scheme of 1998 framed by the U.G.C. was adopted and following in toto, including the qualifications for the post of Lecturer, in view of this announcement of the State policy the universities or colleges/institutions were not allowed to appoint candidates to the post of Lecturers who did not possess the NET qualifications or its equivalent from 12th December, 1999 unless these appointments were covered under the first proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations. Even when the Government issued its Resolution dated 13th of June, 2000, adopting the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission, there was no concession granted, except the concession in the first proviso to Clause 2 therein and, therefore, in respect of the appointments made after 13th June, 2000 also the universities and colleges/institutions were under an obligation to ensure that the candidates appointed to the post of Lecturer did possess the qualifications of NET/SET unless the commission had granted prior approval within the ambit of the first proviso to Clause 2 of the 2000 Regulations. Same is the case in respect of those appointees after 13th of June, 2000 till 18th of October, 2001. None of the appointees in these three groups fulfil the eligibility conditions in respect of the qualifications and, therefore, they obviously stand in the category of unqualified candidates or ineligible candidates. Does it mean that every one of them is liable to be removed from service during the probationary period or thereafter. This question cannot be answered in general terms on the face of the relaxation granted under the first proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations as well as 2000 Regulations. It would be therefore, necessary to examine each case under this proviso and those who did not satisfy the requirements therein must obviously vacate the posts. This question cannot be answered in general terms on the face of the relaxation granted under the first proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations as well as 2000 Regulations. It would be therefore, necessary to examine each case under this proviso and those who did not satisfy the requirements therein must obviously vacate the posts. We deem it appropriate to give these clarification in view of the language of sub-clause (e) of Clause 2 of the impugned Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001. It would be necessary for the concerned university or the college/institution to ascertain whether the appointee concerned is covered by the benefit under the first proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations or 2000 Regulations before taking the final decision of retention or removal as the case may be. The State Governments decision impugned before us, cannot be read in isolation and it must be read in conjunction with the 1991 as well as 2000 Regulations. A particular University or college/institution may justifiably put up a case before the Commission regarding non-availability of adequate facilities for NET/SET examination and/or inadequate number of qualified candidates in a particular subject and more particularly against the posts reserved. These parameters/prevailing conditions could be examined by the Commission which is the final authority and the Commission has retained the discretion for applying its mind to all these ground realities and take appropriate decision of granting concession in favour of such subjects. This discretion of the UGC cannot be taken away by the impugned Resolution which has to be read as an announcement of the Government policy to be implemented on the lines of the Regulations framed by the Commission and not in isolation. 27. Shri Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed before us a mercy petition, by relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (H.C. Puttaswamy and others v. Honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others)2, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 295 and urged before us to hold that as a matter of one time concession all these unqualified lecturers, who are appointed prior to 13th June, 2000 or 18th of October, 2001, should be held to be eligible for the concessions which have been granted in favour of the candidates who have been appointed on or before 11th December, 1999. We are afraid, this cannot be done by us while exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and more so on the face of the Regulations framed by the Commission which is a statutory body created under the U.G.C. Act. The Regulations framed by the Commission have also provided some room for relaxation and the concerned universities/colleges/institutions can approach the Commission for exercise of this power of relaxation in a given subject and for a specific period. It is not for this Court to exercise such powers. Shri Dhobale also argued on the special provisions set out by the Constitution under Article 37(2)(c) of the Constitution. He urged before us that concessions are required to be continued in favour of the candidates coming from backward regions as well as Backward Classes. The language of Article 371 does not contemplate concessions or relaxations to be granted for holding an academic post in technical education or higher education. The Commission is an apex body who has been bestowed with the powers to frame the requirement of qualifications and other eligibility conditions and has accordingly framed the Regulations under which no relaxation is provided from the requirement of qualifications in respect of the candidates coming from either the backward regions or from the Backward Classes except a relaxation of 5% (from 55 of 50%) of the marks at the Masters level for the SC/ST category. The Commission has, thus, considered the subject-matter and granted some relaxation. The submissions for further concessions made by the learned Counsel do not impress us. 28. We have also noted that the title of the 1991 Regulations framed by the Commission is different from the title of the 2000 Regulations. The earlier Regulations were titled as "the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations 1999" whereas the later Regulations were titled as "The University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations 2000". The emphasis, while framing the later Regulations, was for prescribing minimum of qualifications required for appointment and for the career advancement of teachers in the Universities and Institutions affiliated to it. There was no emphasis in this regard in the 1991 Regulations. The emphasis, while framing the later Regulations, was for prescribing minimum of qualifications required for appointment and for the career advancement of teachers in the Universities and Institutions affiliated to it. There was no emphasis in this regard in the 1991 Regulations. This deliberate change in the title of the Regulations also speaks about the intentions of the Commission to lay down a minimum qualifications for appointment and insisted that the teachers with these minimum qualifications are only appointed, subject, however, to the provision of relaxation in specific cases. In the impugned Resolution dated 18th of October, 2001 the State Government has, in Clause 3, called upon the Universities and affiliated Colleges to implement the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission and not to appoint lecturers who do not meet the qualifications set out in these Regulations. If appointments are made of ineligible candidates the State Government will not approve such appointments and grants will not be released in respect of them. The State Government is, therefore, mindful of the legal position that the affiliated colleges and the Universities are bound by the Regulations framed by the Commission so long as they desire to be governed by the provisions of the U.G.C. Act and receive grants from the State Government. 29. It is well established by a catena of judicial enunciations that the academic standards as prescribed by the respective nodal agencies created by an Act of Parliament/Legislature are to be followed and judicial interference in such areas is uncalled for. The Commission is a body created by the U.G.C. Act and in exercise of its statutory powers has prescribed the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturers as well as other faculty members. It is not safe for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Commission in such matters. The academic standards, prescribed by the Commission, including the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment of teaching staff, cannot be a subject-matter of judicial review and this Court would not venture to grant any relaxation in such qualifications, more so when the Commission itself has retained powers of relaxations in the given cases and for a specific period. The academic standards, prescribed by the Commission, including the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment of teaching staff, cannot be a subject-matter of judicial review and this Court would not venture to grant any relaxation in such qualifications, more so when the Commission itself has retained powers of relaxations in the given cases and for a specific period. The State Government, by the impugned Resolution, has only announced its determination to implement the 2000 Regulations meticulously and also ensured that all the colleges/institutions receiving grants, follow the same, failing which the approvals to such appointments would not be granted and they would forfeit the grants available from the Government. It is for these reasons we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (Amiyakumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal)3, W.P. No. 19293 (W) of 1999 with W.P. No. 12593 (W) of 2000." (supra). 9.With respect to the different categories of employees the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was sought to be distinguished and accordingly a group of matters were taken up for hearing by another Division Bench of this Court. While deciding (Writ Petition No. 5782 of 2001)4 wherein by a judgment dated 18-4-2002 the Court has applied the benefits given by the said Resolution dated 18-10-2001 as well as the benefits covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Vishwaprakash s/o. Laxman Sirsath and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and held that those petitioners which were mentioned in the schedule to the order were also entitled to the benefits of the said Resolution as well as the judgment of the Division Bench. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench has in the said judgment, inter alia, stated that there is one more group of cases where terminations were effected for reasons other than the NET/SET examinations requirement and those petitioners have challenged their termination before the College Tribunal and in some cases the said terminations have been struck down. All these petitions should be dealt with by the Single Judges Bench. The said paragraph 4 reads as under : "4. There is yet another group of cases where terminations were effected for reasons other than of NET/SET examinations requirements. All these petitions should be dealt with by the Single Judges Bench. The said paragraph 4 reads as under : "4. There is yet another group of cases where terminations were effected for reasons other than of NET/SET examinations requirements. Those petitioners have challenged their terminations before the College Tribunal and the College Tribunal has in some cases struck down the terminations and in some cases terminations have been confirmed. All these petitions being petitions directed against orders of the College Tribunal are liable to be decided and dealt with by a Single Bench. All such petitions are therefore hereby separated from this bunch and are directed to be placed before the appropriate Single Bench considering those matters for appropriate urgent orders regarding ad interim relief and final hearing. Since majority of the petitions are being disposed of following the judgment delivered by the Aurangabad Bench several contentions raised against the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 are not canvassed and are not heard and we therefore hereby direct that the same shall remain open and available for challenge to any party i.e. to the petitioners, management and UGC if and when occasion for such challenge will arise." 10.Before me, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to distinguish both the Division Benchs judgments, inter alia, on the grounds, firstly that the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 was not in operation on the date of termination on 11-4-2001 and, therefore, cannot be looked into or relied upon. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted for more than two reasons. Firstly, the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 specifically provides for all the categories of teachers appointed during the period 19-9-1991 to 11-12-1999 and in terms provides for such protection. The argument of the learned Counsel that the said Resolution cannot operate retrospectively and, therefore, should be struck down was the argument advanced before the earlier Division Bench of this Court and has been rejected. The earlier Division Bench has found that the said Resolution dated 18-10-2001 in so far as it provides for benefits to the employees during the period 19-9-1991 to 1-12-1999 is legal and valid and, therefore, in the light of the views of the earlier Division Bench, it is not possible for me to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I am bound by the Division Bench judgments referred to hereinbefore. I am bound by the Division Bench judgments referred to hereinbefore. I hereby reject the contention of the petitioner accordingly. 11.In so far as the second contention raised by the petitioner is concerned that the appointment was temporary and, therefore, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to be continued in service right upto the date of retirement, I find that the order of appointment essentially sets out that the appointment is temporary because it is in the reserved category and not because the respondent No. 1 is not qualified. Not only that, the order of termination which is dated 11-4-2001 also indicates that the termination has been effected on the ground that the appointment is year to year basis and not on the ground that the respondent No. 1 do not possess the necessary qualification of NET/SET examination as required under the UGC Rules and Guidelines. That by itself should be suffice to reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. But I have gone into further details and I find that the pleadings before the College Tribunal also do not reflect in any manner the argument sought to be advanced by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was temporary by virtue of the fact that she was not having necessary qualification of NET/SET examination. I do not also find any such argument in the present case having been advanced before the College Tribunal which is essentially an issue of fact and is required to be pleaded and taken before the College Tribunal and cannot be accepted for the first time in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, find no merits of any nature whatsoever in the contention raised by the petitioners herein. 12.The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has produced a Resolution dated 27-2-2002 which is taken on record. The said Resolution in effect accepts the earlier Resolution passed by the Government dated 18-10-2001. I find that the benefits given to respondent No. 1 by the College Tribunal under the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 is legal and valid and respondent No. 1 is entitled to the same. The said Resolution in effect accepts the earlier Resolution passed by the Government dated 18-10-2001. I find that the benefits given to respondent No. 1 by the College Tribunal under the Resolution dated 18-10-2001 is legal and valid and respondent No. 1 is entitled to the same. I also find that the said Resolution having been upheld by the earlier two Division Benches of this Court, the benefits which is conferred by the earlier two Benches also must percolate to the respondent No. 1. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the College Tribunal dated 26-6-2002 and thus I dismiss the petition accordingly. 13.Petition dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 14.Parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. Petition dismissed. -----