Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges appointment order dated 6.1.2007, appointing Dr. Neeraj Batish- respondent No. 3 to the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the Institute of Law (under Self-financing Scheme) in place of the petitioner (P-21). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has done his MA and M.Phil in the subject of Political Science and thereafter also cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission on 20.7.1998 (P-3). Subsequently the petitioner got himself enrolled for the Ph.D. in August 2000. On 13.8.2001, the Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra respondent No. 1 (for brevity, the respondent University) advertised various posts including one post of Lecturer in Political Science (P-4) for the National Institute of Law, Kurukshetra (P- 4). However, the said post couid not be filled. 3. The petitioner has worked with the respondent University as part time Lecturer in the University College from 1.9.2000 to 1.3.2001,6.9.2001 to 5.3.2002, 7.3.2002 to 27.3.2002, 22.8.2002 to 21.2.2003, 24.2.2003 to 24.3.2003 and in the National Institute of Law, Kurukshetra from 18.9.2003 to 16.12.2003. 4. In 2003, again one post of Lecturer in Political Science under Self Financing Scheme was advertised by the respondent University, vide Advertisement No. 3/ 2003 (P-5). The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. He was interviewed by the regular selection committee constituted by the respondent University and selected, vide appointment letter dated 9.8.2004 (P-7). In clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the appointment letter of the petitioner following conditions were incorporated : "3. The appointment is on contract basis for the academic Session 2004-05 with effect from the date of your joining to June 2005. During this period if your work and conduct are not found satisfactory or if you want to abandon the contractual engagement, it can be terminated with one months notice from either side or with one months salary in lieu thereof. 4. The conditions of your service in so far as they are not specified in this letter will be governed by the self-financing Scheme Rules of this University as in force from time to time." 5. On 28.6.2006, the respondent University issued Advertisement No. 1 / 2005 and again advertised one post of Lecturer in Political Science under Self Financing Scheme. The last date of submission of application was 27.7.2005 (P- 13). On 28.6.2006, the respondent University issued Advertisement No. 1 / 2005 and again advertised one post of Lecturer in Political Science under Self Financing Scheme. The last date of submission of application was 27.7.2005 (P- 13). On 29.6.2005, the Director, Institute of Law informed the petitioner that he would cease to be an employee of the university W:e.f. 30.6.2005 on account of completion of his term of appointment (P-14). 6. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 10361 of 2005 in this Court. On 12.7.2005, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order stipulating that the service of the petitioner was not to be terminated to accommodate the other contract employees. The petitioner has placed on record a copy or the Rules known as Kurukshetra University Self Financing Scheme Rules . (for brevity, the Rules) [P-16], The petitioner has claimed that with a view to circumvent the interim order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 10361 of 2005, the respondent University again advertised the post in question by issuing Advertisement No. 4/2006 (P-18). In these circumstances the petitioner had withdrawn C.W.P. No. 10361 of 2005, which was granted vide order dated 26.10.2006 with liberty to file a fresh petition by challenging the orders subsequently passed. However, this Court extended the interim order dated 127.2005 for two weeks (P-19). The petitioner then filed C.W.P. No. 17694 of 2006, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 12.11,2007 with liberty to raise all the issues by filing a fresh petition. It is apposite to notice here that during the pendency of CWP No. 17694 of 2006, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.12.2006 (P-20). On 6.1.2007, Dr. Neeraj Batish-respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in place of the petitioner (P- 21). 7. The petitioner has placed categorical reliance on the decision. dated 11.11.2006 taken by the respondent University, to the effect that all those Lecturers who were appointed under the Self Financing Scheme in the year 2003 or 2004 were to be considered under the amended Self Financing Scheme. According to the claim made by the petitioner a number of lecturers were considered by the Committee constituted under that amended Scheme but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and proceedings of those committee have been placed on record (P-23, P-24, P-25, P-26, P-27 & P-28). According to the claim made by the petitioner a number of lecturers were considered by the Committee constituted under that amended Scheme but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and proceedings of those committee have been placed on record (P-23, P-24, P-25, P-26, P-27 & P-28). The recommendations made by the Committee were approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 8. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent-University a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 because he has not even applied in response to the advertisement and did not participate in the selection procedure. It has been asserted that respondent No. 3 has been appointed as per the amended provisions of the Self Financing Scheme Rules, The respondent- University had placed reliance on Para 8 of the Rules by taking the stand that the posts under the Self Financing Scheme would be filled up purely on temporary basis. The respondent University amended the Rules vide resolution dated 1.1.11.2006 prescribing that the persons who were earlier appointed under the Self Financing Scheme would be governed by the amended rules and the terms of engagement or employees under the Self-financing Scheme would be co-terminus with the specific course/programme for which the employees were appointed (P- 17). It has, therefore, been denied that the petitioner has been replaced by respondent No. 3 whereas the petitioner was relieved vide order dated 20.12.2006 (P-20) in terms of the order dated 26.10.2006 (P-19) passed by this Court. On merits, it has been asserted that the appointment of the petitioner was specifically on contract for the academic session 2004-05 i.e. for one year. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council vide Resolution No. 18, dated 9.8.2004. The appointment of the petitioner was to be automatically concluded in June 2005 in terms of Para 3 of the letter of appointment (P-7). Moreover, his appointment was neither in the regular pay scale of the post nor even otherwise it was regular selection. 9. Mr. The appointment of the petitioner was to be automatically concluded in June 2005 in terms of Para 3 of the letter of appointment (P-7). Moreover, his appointment was neither in the regular pay scale of the post nor even otherwise it was regular selection. 9. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior counsel in support of the petition has argued that non-consideration of the petitioner in accordance with the decision dated 11.11.2006 taken by the Executive Council, is absolutely arbitrary because it postulates consideration of all those Lecturers who were appointed in the year 2003 and 2004 under the Self Financing Scheme and they were to continue till the duration of the course. He has further argued that the decision taken by the Executive Council, vide its Resolution No. 57, dated 11.11.2006, does not confine the consideration only to those who were in service on 11.11.2006 and it covers all those Lecturers who were appointed in 2003 and 2004. He has asserted that the petitioner was appointed in 2004 and was to continue till 2005 although by interim order dated 12.7.2005, passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 10361 of 2005, he continued up to November; 2006. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed on record copies of appointment letters issued to those who were appointed in 2003 and 2004; which according to the learned counsel gives them appointment and running grade with retrospective effect. These letters have been taken on record as Mark A (Colly). 10. Mr. Malik has further submitted that the Director, National Institute of Law, Kurukshetra, has recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of contractual appointment vide letter dated 20.4.2005 (P-30) and, therefore, it cannot be claimed that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not of adequate standard and he lacked in any manner. 11. When the matter came up for consideration on 25.9.2008 an argument was raised by Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent University, that the cases of those teachers alone were covered by the decision dated 11.11.2006 who were in service on the date of consideration. Learned counsel had sought time to seek specific instructions on the issue. Dr. When the matter came up for consideration on 25.9.2008 an argument was raised by Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent University, that the cases of those teachers alone were covered by the decision dated 11.11.2006 who were in service on the date of consideration. Learned counsel had sought time to seek specific instructions on the issue. Dr. Gupta has apprised the Court on the basis of the letter received by him that all the Lecturers who were in service of the respondent University on the date were given the benefits of running grade and their term of appointment was made co-terminus with the course. He has also conceded that the benefit was given with retrospective effect which is evident from the appointment letters issued to some of the candidates [Mark A (Colly)], for example, in the case of three Lecturers, namely, Ms. Tripti Chaudhary, Lecturer in English, Ms. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law and Shri Ram Mehar Singh Punia, Lecturer in Sociology, the benefit of running grade has been allowed with effect from 29.9.2005, which is evident from the proceedings of the Committee which had screened them. 12. Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-University has, however, vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to consideration under the amended Self Financing Scheme as per the decision dated 11.11.2006 passed in pursuance to Resolution No. 57 (P-22) because he was not in service either on 11.11.2006 nor on the date of consideration. He has also submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner in pursuance to Advertisement No. 3/2003.(P-5), was for a period of one year only and it is obvious as to why he was appointed for one year. Dr. Gupta has made an attempt to persuade us that once a person has been appointed only for one year then it must necessarily follow that he has hot been found suitable for long term appointment. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record minutely we are of the considered view that there is merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be accepted. The primary question which requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled consideration for the benefit of the amended Self Financing Scheme which has been passed by the Executive Council vide its Resolution No. 57, dated 11.11.2006. The primary question which requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled consideration for the benefit of the amended Self Financing Scheme which has been passed by the Executive Council vide its Resolution No. 57, dated 11.11.2006. According to the amended Self Financing Scheme those Lecturers who were appointed in the years 2003 and 2004 were to be granted benefit of running grade, term of appointment co- terminus with the course and other benefits which are admissible to the regular employees of the respondent University except Pension. The aforementioned decision has taken into consideration the fact that during the years 2003 and 2004 some posts of Lecturers, inter alia, for the Institute of Law under the Self Financing Scheme were advertised and selections were made through duly constituted Selection Committees on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Accordingly Lecturers were appointed on consolidated salary, which included initial start of the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 plus ADA, HRA and fixed medical allowance. Thereafter, the Self Financing Scheme was amended granting them the term of appointment for one to three years in the first instance and extendable for further period as may be decided by the competent authority, vide Executive Councils Resolution No. 29, dated 25.1.2002. 14. The Executive Council, vide its Resolution No. 32, dated 29.9.2005, inter alia, approved various recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Vice- Chancellor to allow running grade and all other benefits except pension to the staff appointed under the Self Financing Scheme, which reads as under: "1. The appointment of teaching staff under Self-Financing Scheme shall be made on contract basis in the running grade with all other service benefits as are admissible to regular teachers of the University except pension. But their term will be co-terminus with the specific course for which the staff is appointed. 2. The teachers & other non-teaching staff appointed under Self- Financing Scheme in the past will be governed by these rules, if proper procedure was followed at the time of their initial appointment and the selection was made through duly constituted Selection Committee/Establishment Committee. 3. The staff engaged under the Scheme shall be governed by CPF rules as were applicable to University employees prior to introduction of Pension Scheme on completion of two years service." 15. 3. The staff engaged under the Scheme shall be governed by CPF rules as were applicable to University employees prior to introduction of Pension Scheme on completion of two years service." 15. However, the Lecturers like the petitioner who were appointed under the Self Financing Scheme in the years 2003 and 2004 represented to the Vice- Chancellor that since they were appointed through duly constituted Selection Committees on the basis of the UGC/AICTE qualifications after following proper procedure of advertising the posts etc. and after consideration of competing claims they may also be allowed all the benefits under the amended Self Financing Scheme in view of the decision taken by the Executive Council in its Resolution No. 32, dated 29.9.2005. The Vice-Chancellor appointed a Five Member High Powered Committee to consider the issue of allowing running grade and other benefits to the teachers appointed under the Self Financing Scheme in pursuance to the decision taken by the Executive Council vide its Resolution No. 32, dated 29.9.2005. Those recommendations were accepted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.11.2006, which resolved vide its Resolution No. 57 that a Committee be constituted by the Vice Chancellor to examine the cases afresh taking the totality of the circumstances in view. The Vice-Chancellor then constituted a Committee consisting of Registrar, Dean Academic Affairs, Director, U.I.E.T. and Deputy Registrar (Establishment). On the recommendation of this Committee, six separate committees, each one consisting of Dean of the concerned Faculty, Chairman/ Director of the concerned Department/Institute and one outside expert nominated by the concerned Dean of the Faculty concerned were constituted to examine each case afresh taking the totality of the circumstances in view. Accordingly, the Committees met on various dates and recommended a number of lecturers for appointment co-terminus with the course and regular pay scale. The Committee for the teacher of Institute of Law (LL. B 5 year) met on 26.4 2007. The Committee after considering the rules of the Self Financing Scheme as approved by the Executive Council from time to time and examining the cases of each teacher afresh made its recommendation with regard to the grant of benefit of running grade, term of appointment and all other benefits which were admissible to the regular employees of the respondent University except pension. The recommendations made by the aforementioned six Committees were placed before the Executive Council for consideration, which have been duly approved, as is evident from the perusal of its proceedings (P-23 to P-28). 16. A close perusal of the decision dated 11.11.2006. (P-22) does not reveal any limitation on the power of the Committee to consider the cases of those Lecturers alone who were in service on the date of consideration or on 11.11.2006. On the contrary the decision clearly postulate consideration of all those Lecturers who were appointed in the years 2003 and 2004. against advertisement fulfilling qualifications laid down by the UGC/AICTE and who were subjected to the procedure postulated for regular appointments. The aforementioned conclusion is also supported by the recommendations made by the Committees in respect of numerous lecturers which have been duly approved by the respondent University by giving them the benefit from a retrospective date. The cases of three Lecturers, namely, Ms. Tripti Chaudhary, Lecturer in English, Ms. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law and Shri Rani Mehar Singh Punia, Lecturer in Sociology, has already been noticed who have been given the benefit w.e.f. 29.9.2005. 17. The argument of Dr. Balram Gupta that the petitioner was given appointment only for a period of one year and therefore he should be considered inferior or substandard stuff has failed to impress us. On our repeated queries no record was produced showing that the Selection Committee appointing him in the year 2004 had found him sub-standard or inferior which culminated in issuance of appointment letter dated 9.8.2004 (R-7). The emphasis of Dr. Gupta that the petitioner was appointed only for one year does not go any further than the period of employment. Even some conjectural averments have been made in Paras 8 and 9 of the written statement. But beyond duration of only one year nothing has been stated in the written statement. We do not feel impressed with the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner mast be presumed to be substandard candidate for that reason alone because there are specific recommendation made by the Director, National Institute of Law on 20.4.2005 (P-30) requesting the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University to extend the period of contractual appointment and apart from the name of the petitioner, names of Ms. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law, Smt, Sumita, Lecturer in Economices, Dr. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law, Smt, Sumita, Lecturer in Economices, Dr. R.S. Punia, Lecturer in Sociology and Ms. Tripti Chaudhary, Lecturer in English were mentioned (P-30). Likewise, the other argument that consideration is only in respect of the existing lecturers has to be rejected because there is no indication in the decision approved by the Executive Council, dated 11.11.2006 that the consideration would be confined to the existing lecturers. The arguments are not persuasive and the same are hereby rejected. 18. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the decision dated 11.11.2006, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was also entitled to be considered for all those benefits as he was appointed in the year 2004 for a period of one year. He has also faced duly constituted Selection Committee, which have considered all candidates who have applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent University. The fair procedure consistent-with the provisions of Articles L4 and 16(4) of the Constitution has been followed by the respondent University. The petitioner also answers alt the requirements of the decision dated 11.11.2006 (P-22) and could not be deprived of the consideration of his case for conferring those benefits. 19. In view of the above, we direct the respondent-University to place the case of the petitioner before the Committee consisting of the Dean,of the Law Faculty, Chairman/Director of the Law Department and one outside Expert nominated by the. Dean of the Law Faculty. The aforesaid Committee shall examine the case of the petitioner afresh as per the decision dated 11.11.2006 as well as keeping the totality of the circumstances in view. If his case is recommended by the Committee then he shall be granted all the benefits of running grade, term of appointment and all other benefits which are admissible to the regular employees of the, respondent University except pension, as has been granted to persons similarly situate such as Ms. Tripti Chaudhary, Lecturer in English, Ms. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law and Shri Ram Mehar Singh Punia, Lecturer in Sociology. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay but he would be given the benefit of pay fixation. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Petition allowed