N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the orders passed on various dates by the Competent authority, terminating their services from the respective posts held by them as Instructors/lecturers/technicians in BSF Institute of technology with a further direction, directing respondents to give all the benefits, emoluments, salaries and other legal benefits flowing therefrom to these petitioners. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that, petitioners herein were appointed as Instructors/lecturers/technicians in the Border Security force (BSF) Institute of Technology, which is affiliated to AICTE. In pursuance of the notification issued by the Competent Authority, these petitioners have attended their interviews and thereafter, they have been appointed. Accordingly, the appointment orders have also been issued subject to certain 12 conditions. Thereafter, probationary period has been declared by the Competent Authority in respect of all the petitioners in first six petitions, but so far as petitioner in Writ Petition no. 34498 of 1999 is concerned, he has been appointed purely on temporary basis and his probationary period is not confirmed. The reason assigned for terminating the services of these petitioners by the respondents is that, the BSF Education Fund Society, New Delhi has taken a decision to discontinue the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course CAME' for short) for the academic year 1998-99 on account of poor response from the candidates in respect of the said course. As a result of the same, it was not possible to utilise the services of these petitioners gainfully. Therefore, after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority, the respective courses in which these petitioners have been appointed and were working, have been abolished. As a consequence thereof, the respective posts have also been abolished. Hence, the Competent Authority, on the ground that, there are no takers for the said course and that there is no demand from the candidates for the said course, taking into consideration the financial constraints and maintenance of the infrastructure and the libraries etc. , has abolished the respective posts held by these petitioners. Consequently, the termination orders have been issued in accordance with the conditions imposed in the memorandum of appointment order issued to these petitioners. , has abolished the respective posts held by these petitioners. Consequently, the termination orders have been issued in accordance with the conditions imposed in the memorandum of appointment order issued to these petitioners. In view of unilateral decision taken by the competent Authority for terminating the services of these petitioners, without conducting enquiry and without affording any opportunity and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, these petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant writ petitions. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by Sri Vigneshwar Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for all the petitioners except petitioner in writ Petition No. 34498 of 1999 and Sri N. R. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34498 of 1999 is that, the termination of services of petitioners are highly arbitrary, illegal and is in total violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, Sri vigneshwar Shastri vehemently submitted that, since the services of the petitioners have been confirmed, they are all entitled for protection of their services/employment and as such their termination under the guise of abolition of posts is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. He submitted that, if the order of termination is perused carefully, it is clear that, it is not abolition of post but the same is 'termination simpliciter" which is passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. If the abolition of posts were to be made, then, there must have been approval from the Competent Authority and the same must be done in good faith and not as a mask of some penal civil consequences. ( 4 ) FURTHER, he submitted that, the respondents have not made any sincere efforts to give the petitioners alternative employment in the available vacancies wherein, most of the BSF civilians are working and petitioners could have been accommodated in the vacancies available in similar institutions run by the BSF at Thakanpur (Gwaliyar), Delhi and bsf Air Wing. Further, he vehemently submitted that, protection of employment is available to the employees who are working even in government undertakings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india in several judgments. Further, he vehemently submitted that, protection of employment is available to the employees who are working even in government undertakings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india in several judgments. To substantiate the above said submissions, he placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v Union of India and Moti Ram Deka v general Manager, North East Frontier Railway and Another and regarding the submission that the decision taken should be in good faith and not as a mask of some penal action, he relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of N. Ramanatha Pillai v State of Kerala and another. So far as protection of employment as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, he placed reliance on another Supreme court decision in the case of Uptron India Limited v Shammi Bhan and another. Further, he pointed out that, the respondents have not taken into consideration the civil consequences that follow where, all these petitioners have become age-barred and they cannot get any alternate jobs since they are skilled and experts in their respective courses. He submitted that, when the respondents are running several institutions through out India, the services of these petitioners could have been utilised or the petitioners might have been accommodated in other posts which are equivalent to the posts held by these petitioners. The employment of these petitioners is the only source of income for their livelihood and the entire family members are dependent on them. This aspect of the matter has not at all been looked into nor considered under articles 21, 38. and 43 of the Constitution of India including the directive principles of State policy. Therefore, the impugned orders, terminating the services of these petitioners are liable to be set aside and appropriate direction may be issued to respondents to continue the services of the petitioners with all benefits to which they are entitled. ( 5 ) PER contra, the Standing Counsel appearing for first respondent-Union of India and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned orders passed by respondents are in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Institute and that too, the said decision has been taken after prior approval from the Competent Authority. To substantiate their submission, they have taken me through the memorandum (appointment order) issued to petitioners and pointed out condition No. 3, wherein they have made it explicitly clear that, the service is terminable with three months' notice or three months' salary in lieu thereof from either side and without prejudice to para 10 therein. Further, Sri Krishna S. Dixit, learned Counsel for Union of India vehemently submitted that, the bona fide act of abolition of posts is taken on the ground that, there is poor response from students for taking admission to the said course, which is now abolished and as a consequence thereof, the posts in the said course have been abolished. Hence, in view of abolition of the said course and consequently the respective posts, the consequence that naturally follows is the termination of services of these petitioners. As a matter of fact, the respondents have taken a specific stand in their objections that, they have made all sincere efforts to accommodate these petitioners in other institutions run by them, but due to non-availability of vacancies, the services of these petitioners could not be utilised gainfully and they had no other option except to terminate their services. To substantiate the said stand, the learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. S. Dhanoa v Union of India and others, and pointed out that, creation and abolition of post is a prerogative of executive and abolition of post by the Competent authority is an exigency of service and consequent termination of service cannot be challenged on the ground of illegality. Hence, he submitted that, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the termination of their services on the ground of illegality. Further, in response to the contention taken by the learned Counsel for petitioners for accommodating the petitioners in other institutions, relying on the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Rajendran and Others v State of Tamil Nadu and Others , he submitted that, in spite of their sincere and best efforts, the authorities could not accommodate the petitioners elsewhere. To substantiate the said stand, he submitted that, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the said case at paragraph 34, wherein it is held that, the question whether a person who ceases to be a Government servant according to law should be rehabilitated by giving an alternative employment is, as the law stands today, a matter of policy on which the Court has no voice and is purely a prerogative of the appointing authority to take a decision having regard to the financial constraints and the infrastructure and therefore, the course and consequently, the posts are abolished after taking necessary permission from the Competent Authority. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for petitioners that, the respondents have not made sincere efforts for accommodating these petitioners elsewhere in the other institutions run by the respondents. ( 6 ) FURTHER, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 substantiated and submitted that, the impugned orders passed by respondents are in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the institute and no error or illegality as such has been committed by the respondents nor have they violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India. Further, he has taken me through the stand taken by them in their objections at paragraph 7 wherein it is stated that, during the academic year 1997-98, ten students were admitted to the course and out of them, four withdrew their names and the remaining six students continued their course, but at the end of 1997-98 session, they applied for change of branch and joined Electronics and communication. Further, it is the case of respondents that, the respondents were not getting any response from the students for AME course for the reason that, those who had graduated the said course were finding it difficult to get jobs; many of the new NEPC Airlines, east West Airlines came to be closed and many of the new promised airlines did not come up. Therefore, he submitted that, this is the ground reality and the said decision has been taken in good faith after obtaining necessary permission/approval from the Competent Authority and the same is well-within the terms and conditions of appointment order given to these petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that, this is the ground reality and the said decision has been taken in good faith after obtaining necessary permission/approval from the Competent Authority and the same is well-within the terms and conditions of appointment order given to these petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents placed heavy reliance on condition No. 3 of the appointment order issued to these petitioners, as stated supra. Further, to substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Notified Area Council, Pipili and Another v gahar Mohammad and Another and submitted that, the position is well-settled that, the abolition of posts is within the power of the employer and any decision in that regard is not available to be interfered with by the Court unless it is held to be vitiated by mala fides or is arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case before this Court on the ground of mala fides or arbitrary or unreasonableness. Further, relying upon a decision of the Supreme court in the case of State of Haryana v Des Raj Sangar and Another, he pointed out that, whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide, and as long as the decision is taken in good faith, it could not be set aside by the Court. In the instant case, the authorities, after taking into consideration the ground reality and in view of poor response to the course from the students, were constrained and had no other option except to take a decision for abolition of posts and pass consequential termination orders, terminating the services of the petitioners and the same are in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of appointment order issued to petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by respondents are in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the BSF Institute of Technology and its Code. Further, the learned counsel drew my attention to one of the important aspects of the matter that, the institution under which these petitioners were appointed is purely an unaided institution and the said institution is headed by a committee, which is supposed to run the institute within the BSF education Fund and it does not have any member from the Ministry of human Affairs or representative from AICTE or DGCA. The BSF education Fund Society consists of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and five other members, from the BSF and they are supposed to maintain the institute within the BSF Education Fund and the said Fund is collected from the Officers/employees of the BSF only. Only on two earlier occasions, some incentive was given by the then Home Ministry. Therefore, he submitted that, since the institute is purely an unaided institute and is maintained by the funds collected from BSF personnel, the petitioners cannot seek for continuation of service in spite of abolition of course and consequently the posts. Hence, the instant writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be rejected at the threshold; nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds for interference in the impugned orders passed by respondents. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Counsel for respondents, after careful perusal of the material available on record threadbare, and after considering the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents, the points that arise for consideration in the instant writ petitions are: (i) Whether the termination of services of petitioners is in accordance with law? (ii) Whether the abolition of posts is done in good faith and in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of appointment order issued to petitioners? re: Point (i ).-To understand better, it is worthwhile to mention the