DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. The Department of Culture, Government of U. P. was having three Indian Folk Music Schools at Lucknow, Almora and Dehradun, with the name and title "bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, in short, Institute. All the three institutes were fully financed and controlled by the Government of U. P. The teachers were transferable from one institute to other institute. Virtually, the institute situated at Lucknow was the main institute and other two for all practical purposes were branches of the institute, situated at Lucknow. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Kathak) in the institute, situated at Almora by an order dated 24. 3. 1990, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. She was appointed in pursuance to the selection made by a Selection Committee on ad hoc basis by the Government of U. P. An appointment letter was issued by the Director, Directorate of Culture, Government of U. P. , Lucknow. In pursuance to the appointment letter dated 24. 3. 1990, issued by the Director, Culture, Government of U. P. , the petitioner resumed duty as Lecturer (Kathak) and was continuing in service. The Government of U. P. , by another order dated 23. 8. 1991 by an unilateral decision, informed the Director, Cultural Affairs, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow that the tenure of appointment of the petitioner and some other teachers is made contractual from 1. 3. 1991 for a period of eight months subject to payment of fixed salary of Rs. 3,516/- per month. It shall be important to take note of the fact that by appointment letter dated 24. 3. 1990, the petitioner was appointed at Almora branch but directed to resume duty at Lucknow and her services were transferable to any branch. 3. The post of Lecturer (Kathak) was advertised and feeling aggrieved with the advertisement, issued in the month of October, 1990, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition No. 6003 (S/s) of 1991. This Court by an interim order dated 18. 9. 1991 permitted the petitioner to continue in service with liberty to appear in the selection in pursuance to the advertisement but the result would not be declared. 4. According to the petitioners counsel, in pursuance to the interim order dated 18. 9. 1991, the petitioner was permitted to continue in service as ad hoc Lecturer in terms of the original appointment order. 4. According to the petitioners counsel, in pursuance to the interim order dated 18. 9. 1991, the petitioner was permitted to continue in service as ad hoc Lecturer in terms of the original appointment order. The attention of the Court has been invited to the fact that in the year 1991, when the petitioner was appointed, qualification for the post of Lecturer was Visharad/bachelors Degree with three years experience in a Sangeet institution. The qgiven in the advertisement No. 3/90-91, published by the Public Service Commission of the State of U. P. is reproduced as under : PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ADVT. : UTTAR PRADESH 3/90-91 (12) ONE LECTURER (KATHAK NRITYA), Almora Branch of Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalay. (Deptt. No. S-3/5) POST:- Non-gazetted/temporary, PAY :- 850-1270 (Old Scale), QUALIFICATIONS : ESSENTIAL :- (1) Visharad/bachelors degree or equivalent qualification in concerning subject. (2) At least three years teaching experience in a Sangeet institution of repute or three years experience of production work in any station of AIR and (3) High School examination of U. P. Board or its equivalent. PREFERENTIAL :- Experience of performance Prescribed qualifications relaxable in case of candidates otherwise found suitable. AGE :- Between 25 to 35 years. " It has been stated that when the petitioner was appointed in 1991 as ad hoc teacher, she was possessing the aforesaid qualification. 5. According to the petitioners counsel, the petitioner possessed the following qualifications and experience in the field of music : ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION OF SMT. MANJULA PANT S. No. Qualification Institute Year Div. Note 1. Madhyama Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1977 I Madhyama in Kathak is two years course. 2. Visharad Kathak Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1979 I Visharad in Kathak is two years course. (Graduate) 3. Nipun Kathak Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1982 I Nipun in Kathak is three years course. (Postgraduate) 0 4. High School U. P. Board 1979 I 5. Intermediate U. P. Board 1981 I 6. B. A. Lucknow University 1983 I 7. M. A. (Sociology) Lucknow University 1985 I 8. Madhyama (Vocal) Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1983 I 2 9. Visharad Kathak Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1985 I 10. Nipun Vocal Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1988 II 11. Visharad Tabla Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1991 II 12. Prabhakar Tabla Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth I 13. Diploma in Thumri & Dadra Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1982 I 14. 4 Trained in Kathak Dance by Dr. Madhyama (Vocal) Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1983 I 2 9. Visharad Kathak Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1985 I 10. Nipun Vocal Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1988 II 11. Visharad Tabla Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1991 II 12. Prabhakar Tabla Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth I 13. Diploma in Thumri & Dadra Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth 1982 I 14. 4 Trained in Kathak Dance by Dr. Puru Dadhichi of Jaipur Gharana and Smt. Purnima Pandey of Lucknow Gharana. 6. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer in Kathak at the time when she was appointed in the year 1990-91. On account of eye-ailment, the petitioner moved an application for transfer to Lucknow. In pursuance to her application dated 5. 2. 1999, the Government of U. P. had attached the petitioner to the institute, situated at Lucknow subject to the rider that the salary shall be drawn from Almora branch. A copy of the order dated 14. 6. 1999, issued by the Secretary of the State of U. P. has been filed as Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition. 7. The order of June 14, 1999 was further modified by the government, vide office memorandum dated 14. 2. 2000 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) and thereby the petitioner was attached to the vacant post of Lecturer (Kathak) and she was paid salary from the institute situated at Lucknow. . 8. Since there was regular vacancy in the institute at Lucknow, the petitioners services were transferred permanently to the institute, situated at Lucknow by the State Government by office memorandum dated 13. 7. 2000, a copy of which has been filed as Anneuxre No. 18 to the writ petition. According to the petitioners counsel, in pursuance to the office memorandum dated 13. 7. 2000 (Anneuxre-18), the petitioner has been discharging duty against the regular post of Lecturer (Kathak) in the institute situate at Lucknow. 9. The Govt. of India, in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, had declared Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow, i. e. the institute in question as deemed university. As a follow up action, the Secretary, Culture, Government of U. P. by an order dated 18. 4. 9. The Govt. of India, in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, had declared Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow, i. e. the institute in question as deemed university. As a follow up action, the Secretary, Culture, Government of U. P. by an order dated 18. 4. 2001 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), has informed the Director, Culture that the institute situate at Lucknow has been declared as deemed university and option may be invited from the teachers and staff concerned who want to remain in the institute. The name and title of the institute situated at Lucknow was changed as "bhatkhande Music Institute", in short, Music Institute. The official letter dated 18. 4. 2001 further protects the salary and other benefits of teachers and staff who were working in the institute situate at Lucknow before the notification dated 24. 10. 2000, issued by the Government of India declaring the institute as deemed university. The Director of erstwhile Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya was re-designated as Vice-Chancellor of the Music Institute. 5 10. By subsequent office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition), the Music Institute through its Vice Chancellor had invited option from the teachers and staff who were willing to continue at the Music Institute after being declared as deemed universityy. The teachers and staff were expected to submit their option in the required format within thirty days. At this stage, it shall be appropriate to indicate that the State of U. P. was bifurcated in pursuance to the Reorganisation Act, 2000 and the State of Uttaranchal was created from 9. 11. 2000. 11. According to the petitioners counsel Shri B. R. Singh, after November 9, 2000 and keeping in view the office memorandum of April 13, 2000, the petitioner has become an employee of the institute, situate at Lucknow and was entitled to continue at Lucknow in the same terms and conditions which she was enjoying on 9. 11. 2000. She has become the employee of State of U. P. unless and until she would have been allocated the State of Uttaranchal in pursuance to the statutory provisions contained in the Reorganisation Act, 2000. 12. In pursuance to the office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001, the petitioner has submitted her option in the require format disclosing her choice to continue in the Music Institute at Lucknow. 12. In pursuance to the office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001, the petitioner has submitted her option in the require format disclosing her choice to continue in the Music Institute at Lucknow. According to the petitioners counsel, her option was accepted and her services were regularised with effect from 16. 5. 2001 in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of Management dated 5. 5. 2001. 13. The Board of Management, vide its resolution of May 5, 2001 (Annexure-11), unanimously resolved to regularise the services of all the ad hoc teachers including the petitioner against regular vacant post. 14. The decision for regularisation of the services of ad hoc Lecturers and teachers was taken in pursuance to the report of the Vice Chancellor of the Music Institute. The report of the Vice Chancellor was accepted unanimously for regularisation of services. The services of the following teachers were regularised along with the petitioner : 1. Shri Abhinav Sinha, Reader 2. Sushri Laxmi Srivastava, Reader Bharatnatyam, 3. Smt. Beena Singh, Reader Kathaknritya 6 4. Shri Dharmpal Badpaga, Lecturer Gayan 5. Shri Shital Prasad Mishra, Lecturer Tabala 6. Shri Dharmnath Mishra, Lecturer Gayan 7. Shri Deepak Chatterjee, Lecturer Sitar 8. Dr. Ranjana Dwivedi, Lecturer Gayan 9. Smt. Manjula Pant, Lecturer Kathaknritya (petitioner) 10. Shri Raj Kishore Verma, Kanishth Pravakta Tabla 11. Smt. Seeta Saxena, Kanishk Pravakta Sitar 15. The Board of Management in its meeting held on 5. 5. 2000 has also resolved to frame rules and appropriate amendment in the rules of earlier institute. 16. In pursuance to the resolution of the Board of Management dated 5. 5. 2001, the services of the petitioner were regularised by an order dated 16. 5. 2001, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. The office memorandum dated May 16, 2001 was issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Music Institute and it shows that the petitioners services were regularised against the vacant post of Lecturer (Kathak) with effect from 5. 5. 2001, i. e. the date when the Board of Management has resolved to regularise the services of the petitioner and other teachers. In pursuance to the regularisation order dated 16. 5. 2001, the petitioner has been continuing as permanent teacher of the Music Institute. 7 17. 5. 2001, i. e. the date when the Board of Management has resolved to regularise the services of the petitioner and other teachers. In pursuance to the regularisation order dated 16. 5. 2001, the petitioner has been continuing as permanent teacher of the Music Institute. 7 17. By a show cause notice/letter dated April 23, 2005 (Annexure-14), the Vice Chancellor of the university informed the petitioner that the resolution of the Board of Management dated 5. 5. 2001 and consequential order dated 16. 5. 2001 was violative of the Government Order of January 25, 2000 and April 18, 2001. The Vice Chancellor has shown his intention to make status quo ante as was existing prior to December 24, 2000 with regard to the petitioners service career. The notice further indicates that the petitioner does not possess qualification required by the U. G. C. norms as per circular dated 25. 1. 2000. The petitioner was informed that if she is interested to join career advancement scheme, then she had to submit fresh application in the required format before the competent authority. The petitioners transfer from Almora to Lucknow in the manner indicated hereinabove was also held to be illegal on the ground that the petitioner does not possess required qualification under U. G. C. norms. 18. The show cause notice/letter as well as the advertisement made on 4. 7. 2004 was impugned by the petitioner in writ petition No. 698 (S/b) of 2005. A defence was taken by the respondents that the petitioner does not fulfil the required qualification under the University Grant Commission norms. A Division Bench of this Court by order of May 9, 2005, had permitted the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice and posted the matter for hearing along with earlier writ petition No. 6003 (S/s) of 1991. The respondents were restrained to fill up the post of Lecturer (Kathak) till the next date of listing. However, the interim order of May 9, 2005, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 695 (M/b) of 2005 seems to have lapsed on account of fault of the earlier learned counsel for the petitioner of the said writ petition who could not make a mention for extension of the interim order and in consequence thereof, the respondent No. 4 Ms. Ruchi Khare was appointed by order dated May 19, 2005 on the post of Lecturer (Kathak ). As evident from appointment letter, Smt. Ruchi Khare was appointed conditionally, subject to outcome of the writ petition. 19. By the impugned order dated 18. 5. 2005, the petitioners regularisation has been cancelled and she has been reverted back to the institute, situate at Almora and the post of Lecturer (Kathak) was kept vacant but as observed hereinabove, on account of lapse of the interim order, at later stage, the opposite party No. 4 was appointed subject to outcome of the writ petition. 20. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of May 18, 2005, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition against her reversion to Almora as well as at later stage, by amendment, the appointment of the opposite party No. 4 has also been impugned. 8 21. It shall be appropriate to observe at this stage that only the institute situate at Lucknow has been declared as deemed university and the other institutes, situated at Almora and Dehradun are still Mahavidyalay belonging to State of Uttaranchal. Much emphasis has been given by the petitioners counsel while assailing the impugned order with the plea that the petitioners services could not be reverted back to the institute, situate at Almora, being violative of the statutory provisions, contained in the Reorganisation Act, 2000. The Music Institute where the petitioners services were absorbed and which has been declared as deemed university by the Government of India is governed by its own Memorandum of Association and Rules. 22. Under the Memorandum of Association, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, prepared in pursuance to the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the original founding members of the Board of Management contains 12 members, namely, Secretary, Government of U. P. , Department of Culture, Lucknow, Director, Bhatkhande College of Hindustani Music, Lucknow, Joint Director, Directorate of Culture, 9th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, Principal Secretary, Government of U. P. , Department of Finance, Lucknow, Secretary, Government of U. P. , Department of Planning, Lucknow, Secretary, U. P. Sangeet Natak Academy, Lucknow, Prof. U. S. Kochak, Retd. Head of Deptt. of Music, Allahabad University, Allahabad, Mr. Debu Chowdhury, Dean of Music, Faculty of Arts, Delhi University, New Delhi, Ms. Girija Devi. U. S. Kochak, Retd. Head of Deptt. of Music, Allahabad University, Allahabad, Mr. Debu Chowdhury, Dean of Music, Faculty of Arts, Delhi University, New Delhi, Ms. Girija Devi. H-19, Sanjay Nagar Colony Chauka Ghat, Near Cotton Mill, Varanasi, Smt. Susheela Mishra, Art Critic, Writer and Author of Books, Lucknow, Ms. Rita Ganguly, Professor, Department of Mine, National School of Drama, New Delhi and Shri K. K. Nayyar, Retd. DDG - Broadcasting, Lucknow. 23. In pursuance to the power, conferred by the Memorandum of Association, rules were framed and the power of Board of Management has been provided under Rule 5. Under Rule 5 (b), the Board of Management is the highest administrative body and has got power to create administrative, ministerial and other posts of teachers and professors. It has got power to lay down the duties and conditions of service of professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and other academic staff, maintained by the Institute. 24. The composition of the Board of Management has been provided in Rule 5 (b) which is reproduced as under : " (b) Composition of the Board of Management The Board of Management shall consist of :- 1- Vice-Chancellor - Chairman 2- Deans of Faculties (if any) not exceeding three by rotation and on seniority 3- Three nominees of the President of the Institute. 4- One nominee of the Chairman, U. G. C. 5. One nominee of the Government of India. 6. One nominee of the State Government. 7. Three teachers (Professor, Reader, Lecturer) (by rotation) according to seniority. 8. One nominee of the sponsoring Society. 9. The Registrar shall be the non-Member Secretary. 25. The procedure to hold the meeting of the Board of Management provided under Rule 5 (d) seems to be relevant for adjudication of the present controversy, hence reproduced as under : " (d) Meetings of the Board of Management 0 (i) The Board of Management shall meet at least four times a year. Not less than 15 days notice shall be given of a meeting of the Board of Management and a copy of the proceedings of each meeting shall be furnished to the President of the Institute as soon as possible after the meeting. (ii) Each member of the above Body including its Chairman shall have one vote and decisions at the meeting of the Board shall be taken by simple majority. (ii) Each member of the above Body including its Chairman shall have one vote and decisions at the meeting of the Board shall be taken by simple majority. In case of a tie, the Chairman shall have a casting vote. (iii) Every meeting of the above Body shall be presided over by its Chairman, and in his absence by a member chosen by the members present from amongst themselves shall preside over the meeting. (iv) Any business which it may be necessary for the above Body to perform, may be carried out by circulating appropriate resolution thereon among its members and any resolution so circulated and approved by a simple majority shall be as effective and binding as if such resolution had been passed at the meeting of the Board. If a member other than the Vice-Chancellor or those representing the teachers accepts a full time appointment in the Institute or he does not attend three consecutive meetings of the Board of Management without proper leave of absence, he shall cease to be a member of the above Body. " According to Rule 5 (d), the meeting of the Board of Management shall be held four times in a year and not less than fifteen days prior notice shall be given to its members. 26. Under Rule 7, the Board of Management can delegate its powers to Vice Chancellor but the power so exercised by the Vice Chancellor shall be reported to the Board in its next meeting for approval. 27. All assets and liabilities of the erstwhile Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya was transferred to Bhatkhande Music Institute in question and the related information was communicated by the Government to the Directorate of Cultural Affairs by letter dated 18. 4. 2001 (Anneuxre-5 ). 1 28. It appears that the Vice Chancellor has constituted a Committee to assess the qualification of teachers working in the Music Institute under the U. G. C. norms. the Committee so constituted in its meeting held on 16. 5. 2005 had observed that the petitioner does not fulfil the required qualification under the U. G. C. norms and her transfer from Almora to Lucknow was not in accordance with law. The Committee observed that the petitioners transfer was violative of the Government Order of January 25, 2000. Accordingly, it was resolved by the Committee that the petitioner should be reverted back to Almora Branch. 29. The Committee observed that the petitioners transfer was violative of the Government Order of January 25, 2000. Accordingly, it was resolved by the Committee that the petitioner should be reverted back to Almora Branch. 29. The report of the Committee of May 16, 2005 was placed in the Agenda of the Board and the Board in its meeting held on 18. 5. 2005 resolved to revert back the petitioner to Almora Branch. The order of regularisation was held to be illegal. 30. While assailing the order, in question, it has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the meeting of the Board was convened in violation of rules and it was not attended by the requisite number of members. He further submits that out of eight members of the Board of Management, only two has attended the meeting, i. e. the Vice Chancellor and one other member apart from the teachers representative. Accordingly, the submission is that since no fifteen days prior notice was circulated amongst the members of the Board, the decision of the Board of Management is nullity in law. 31. During the course of hearing, records were produced before the Court. Keeping in view the bulk of records, Registrar of this Court was directed to peruse the same in the presence of the parties counsel and submit a report. The Registrar has submitted his report dated 12. 1. 2009 and thereafter parties were directed to file objections, if any. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Mr. Shrish Kumar as well as Mr. Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the private respondent defended the impugned orders and decision taken by the institute. It is submitted by the respondents counsel that the petitioner does not fulfill required qualification and she was illegally transferred to Lucknow and has got no lien with the Bhatkhand Music Institute and she has been rightly reverted to Almora. It has also been submitted that the Board being the highest administrative body was empowered to resolve on 18. 5. 2005 to revert back the petitioner to Almora Branch. The validity of the petitioners appointment, regularisation and transfer to Lucknow: 2 33. Factually, it has not been disputed that the petitioner was appointed at Almora in the year 1991. It has also been submitted that the Board being the highest administrative body was empowered to resolve on 18. 5. 2005 to revert back the petitioner to Almora Branch. The validity of the petitioners appointment, regularisation and transfer to Lucknow: 2 33. Factually, it has not been disputed that the petitioner was appointed at Almora in the year 1991. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner possesses the degree of Visharad which is equivalent to Bachelors degree from Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth, Lucknow (1979 ). It is also undisputed that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc basis in the institute situated at Almora. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioner was ad hoc in nature. Though, while filing counter affidavit, the respondent doubted the petitioners academic qualification but in response, the certificate filed by the petitioner with rejoinder affidavit has not been denied. 34. The petitioner was appointed by office memorandum dated 24. 3. 1990. The order was passed by the Director, Cultural Affairs in pursuance to the result sent by duly constituted Selection Committee. It appears that the Committee was not constituted at Almora Branch but it was constituted by the Government at Lucknow. The appointment order (Annexure-7) reveals that though the petitioner was appointed for Almora Branch but she was expected to take charge in the office at Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow. According to the condition No. 4 of the office memorandum dated 24. 3. 1990 (Annexure No. 7), though the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc but her services were transferable to other branch. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the petitioners services were confined to Almora Branch. 35. On account of eye-ailment, application was moved by the petitioner on 5. 2. 1999 and on compassionate ground, the petitioner was transferred to Lucknow. Though, initially, the petitioners salary was drawn from Almora but later on by office memorandum dated 14. 2. 2000 (Anneuxre-17), the petitioner was adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer Kathak at Lucknow and ultimately by office memorandum dated 13. 7. 2000 (Anneuxre-18), she was permanently absorbed in the institute at Lucknow. 36. It has been vehemently submitted by Mr. Shrish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners services could not have been transferred to Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be mis- conceived. 7. 2000 (Anneuxre-18), she was permanently absorbed in the institute at Lucknow. 36. It has been vehemently submitted by Mr. Shrish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners services could not have been transferred to Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be mis- conceived. The terms and conditions given in the appointment letter (Annexure-7) itself indicates that the petitioners post was transferable to other branches of Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, meaning thereby, the Government was very well within its jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner to Lucknow. The Government has also acted within jurisdiction while adjusting the petitioners services against the vacant post of Lecturer of Kathak at Lucknow. It is incorrect to say that the transfer or adjustment of the petitioners services at Lucknow against the vacant post was without jurisdiction or improper. For convenience, condition No. 4 of the appointment letter is reproduced as under : 3 ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ????? ? 37. The erstwhile Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya was under the Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of U. P. The Board of Management was empowered to regularise the services. The nature of the petitioners services was ad hoc when she was placed against regular vacant post on 13. 4. 2000. While submitting the report, the Registrar has filed the copy of the attendance sheet of the members who appeared in the meeting of the Board of Management dated 5. 5. 2001. The attendance sheet contains the names of 12 members and its Chairman Shri Shailesh Krishna, Secretary of the State Government. Thus, the meeting dated 5. 5. 2001 was presided by Shri Shailesh Krishna, Secretary, Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of U. P. 38. So far as the qualification of the petitioner is concerned, from the advertisement of the Public Service Commission (Supra) as well as U. G. C. circular (Annexure-20), it is apparent that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Lecturer Kathak Nritya in the year 1990-91 was Visharad/bachelors degree having three years teaching experience in Sangeet institution of repute. The petitioner possesses Visharad qualification in Kathak which is equivalent to graduate and Nipun in Kathak which is equivalent to Post-graduate course. The petitioner had obtained the required qualification before joining the services on ad hoc basis at Almora. The petitioner possesses Visharad qualification in Kathak which is equivalent to graduate and Nipun in Kathak which is equivalent to Post-graduate course. The petitioner had obtained the required qualification before joining the services on ad hoc basis at Almora. Apart from the minimum academic qualification, the other academic qualification and experience claimed to possess by the petitioner shows that she has been a brilliant scholar of her branch and possesses required qualification necessary for appointment on the post of Teacher/lecturer in the institute. The qualification possessed by the petitioner has not been proved false or incorrect by the respondents with substantial evidence. Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Lecturer of Kathak. 39. It has been submitted that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification under UGC Regulations. The UGC Regulations circulated on 4. 4. 2000 relate to appointment for Career Advancement of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the universities and colleges. Mr. Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. Sirish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the Regulations, namely University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, in short, Regulations. Under the head, "qualifications", Regulations 2000 make it mandatory that no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges unless he possess minimum qualification provided therein. 4 However, it further provides that the Regulations shall not be applicable to such case where the selection of the candidates having made on the basis of the then requisite minimum qualification existing at that time through duly constituted Selection Committees and the appointment have been made prior to the enforcement of the Regulations. For convenience, Regulation 2 is reproduced as under : "2 Qualifications : No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Annexure. Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University Grants Commission in a particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number of candidates are not available with NET qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if allowed, would be given based on sound justification and would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject for the specified period. No individual applications would be entertained.) Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections of the candidates having had the then requisite minimum qualification as were existing at that time through duly constituted Selection Committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of the regulations. " 40. In the year 1991 when the petitioner was appointed, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher was three years experience with Bachelors Degree. The petitioner possesses certificate of Vasharad which is equivalent to Bachelors Degree and she was having three years experience. Accordingly, so far as the petitioners initial appointment is concerned, it was very well done keeping in view her qualification necessary for the purpose in the year 1991. She was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Accordingly on that score, it cannot be said that she was picked from open market without facing the selection Committee. Though, it is true that the post falls within the domain of the Public Service Commission but to meet out the requirement or exigency of service, engagement of ad hoc teachers by the State Government does not seem to be improper, more so when it was done almost 18 years back. 5 41. With regard to minimum qualification, Regulation 1. 6. 1 is relevant and for convenience, it is reproduced as under : "1. 6. 1. Lecturer Good academic record with at least 55% of the 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 or an equivalent degree from an Indian/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 UGC. OR A traditional or a professional artist with highly commendable professional achievement in the concerned subject. 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 UGC. OR A traditional or a professional artist with highly commendable professional achievement in the concerned subject. Note :- NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph. D. degree. However, the candidate who have completed M. Phil. degree or have submitted Ph. D thesis in the concerned subject up to 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. " 42. A plain reading of the UGC Regulations indicates that the candidates should have qualified NET having Graduate Degree or should be a traditional or professional artist with highly commendable professional achievement in the concerned subject. The material brought on record indicates that the petitioner possesses very high academic record. She has done Visharad (equivalent to graduation) from Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow and also Nipun which is equivalent to post- graduation. 6 She is the recipient of various awards and participated in various national, international functions. Material on record further indicates that she has written three books, namely (1) Kathak-A comprehensive study (2) Tabla-The sou71 of Music (3) Text Book of Bharatnatyam CO-Author of this book is Ms. Meera Mathur. She has completed two Refresher Courses conducted by the UGC Academic Staff College, Lucknow University. The project report submitted by the petitioner in each of the refresher course is treated as her one published paper on the subject. 43. The petitioner is trained in kathak dance from Jaipur Gharana and Lucknow Gharana and given performance in not only Lucknow Mahotsava but at other various places from time to time, the details of which are on record. In view of above, the petitioner seems to possess required qualification provided by the UGC Regulations and the Board of Management cannot be faulted for regularising the services. 44. One of the grounds raised by Mr. Shishir Jain with regard to minimum qualification is that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification provided by the Service Rules framed in the year, 2002. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be mis-conceived. The decision to regularise the petitioners services was taken in the month of May, 2001 by the Board of Management. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be mis-conceived. The decision to regularise the petitioners services was taken in the month of May, 2001 by the Board of Management. Accordingly, minimum qualification necessary for the petitioners absorption and regularisation should be seen as was necessary at the time of ad hoc appointment or as was necessary in the year 2001 itself and not later on. The Service Rules framed for the deemed university is prospective in nature and shall not come in the way with regard to the petitioners regularisation. Moreover, even otherwise, the petitioner seems to fulfil minimum qualification provided by Service Rules, framed in the year 2002. 45. The petitioner was transferred to Lucknow in pursuance to the oder, passed by the State Government. The State Government was comptent to transfer the petitioner as all the three instiutes including the Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, situate at Lucknow were under the Department of Cultural Affairs. The petitioner was absorbed against regular vacancy but the nature of the petitioners appointment was maintained as ad hoc. Later on, she was regularised by the Board of Management against regular vacancy in the manner indicated hereinabove. 46. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Board of Management was not competent to regularise the petitioners services. The power of Board of Management is provided under Rule 5. A plain reading of rule shows that being the highest administrative and supervisory body, the Board of Management possess power to appoint teachers and lay down their duties and conditions and also to create teaching and academic post. Relevant portion as contained in the rule with regard to power of the Board of Management is reproduced as under : "5. POWERS AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT. The Board of Management shall be the principal organ of Management in the institute. It shall be a compact and homogenous body enabling it promptly to take and implement well-considered decisions and to effectively handle crisis situations. (a) POWERS The Board of Management shall be the Principal Executive body of the institute and shall in addition to all powers vested in it, have the following powers namely : i) To manage and administer the revenues and properties of the institute and to conduct all administrative affairs of the institute not otherwise specifically provided for. (a) POWERS The Board of Management shall be the Principal Executive body of the institute and shall in addition to all powers vested in it, have the following powers namely : i) To manage and administer the revenues and properties of the institute and to conduct all administrative affairs of the institute not otherwise specifically provided for. ii) To create teaching and academic posts to determine number, qualifications and cadres thereof as approved by the University grants Commission and the emoluments of such posts in consultation with the Finance Committee. iii) To appoint such Professors, Associate Professors, (Readers), Asstt. Professors (Lecturers) and other academic staff as may be necessary on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. (iv) To lay down the duties and conditions of service of the Professors, Associate Professors, Asst. Professors and other academic staff maintained by the Institute, in consultation with the Academic Council. v) To provide for appointment of Visiting Fellow and Visiting Professors. 8 vi) To create administrative, ministerial and other necessary post in terms of the cadres laid down or otherwise and to make appointment thereof in consultation with the Finance Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47. It has not been disputed that the Service Rules of the teachers and staff were framed in the year 2002. In the year 2001, there was no service rules. Being newly constituted deemed university and keeping in view the exigency of service and to safeguard the services of erstwhile employees of the institute, the Board of Management took a decision to regularise the services of the employees. The Board of Management while passing resolution on 5. 5. 2001 seems to have acted within jurisdiction. In absence of any service rule, the Board of Management was competent to take a decision with regard to the employees/teachers of the erstwhile Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya. Of course, while doing so, no person should have been regularised who does not possess minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC Regulations but as discussed (supra), the petitioner does possess minimum qualification and the Board was competent to regularise the services. 48. Of course, while doing so, no person should have been regularised who does not possess minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC Regulations but as discussed (supra), the petitioner does possess minimum qualification and the Board was competent to regularise the services. 48. In (1997)11 SCC 683 Union of India versus S. K. Bhargawa, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court ruled that the conditions provided in the appointment letter may be given effect in case the contingency requires. 49. Transfer of the petitioner from Almora to Lucknow was well within the power of the State Government keeping in view the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2000)10 SCC 179 Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. versus Y. S. Shetty and others has held that the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter cannot be ignored unless there are some statutory bar. 50. In (2007)11 SCC 102 Gurbachan Lal versus Regional Engineering College, Kuruksheta and others, where the appointment was done contractual and conditions were governed by the appointment letter, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court ruled that action taken by the State keeping in view the terms and conditions given in the appointment letter cannot be faulted. Relevant portion is reproduced as under : "36. Coming to the question whether the service conditions could be amended to the disadvantage of the employee, as per the facts presented before us it is clear that there existed a contract of 9 employment between the appellant and the Institution. Moreover, the nature of employment was explicitly laid down in the appointment letter, as noted herein earlier, to which the appellant had communicated his acceptance, as temporary. Therefore, it is valid in law for the Institution to terminate the appellant from service in a manner, which did not favour him. " 51. In view of above, the petitioners transfer to Lucknow does not seem to be illegal or violate any statutory rule or regulation. 52. Though the notice served upon the petitioner indicates that an observation has been made that the petitioner could not have been transferred to Lucknow but the attention of the Court has not been invited to any material on record which may indicate that the order of transfer was passed in violation of certain rules and regulations or the Government was not competent to transfer the petitioner to Lucknow. Since all the three institutes were under the Department of Cultural Affairs, the State Government was competent to transfer the petitioner at Lucknow. In absence of any statutory bar, the transfer of the petitioner to Lucknow does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Validity of resolution dated May 18, 2005 and review of earlier decision 53. By office memorandum dated 25. 1. 2000 contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, the State Government has informed the Director, Department of Cultural Affairs that Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya has been given the status of deemed university. The letter indicates that in the deemed university, only those teachers should be appointed who filful minimum qualification provided by U. G. C. circular. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the circular dated 25. 1. 2000 in its totality as under : ?????? -???/???-????-?? (??)/?? ??????, ????? ????? 0 ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ???, ??????, ???????? ????????, ?????? ????? ???, ???? ? ???????? ?????? ???? : ?????? : ?? ?????, ???? ???? : ????????? ???????????? ????? ???????????, ???? ?? ????? ????????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????????????, ?????????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????: ??????, ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????????/???????? ?? ???????? ? ?????, ????????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ???????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????????????, ?????????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????: ??????, ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????, ????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??, ?? ??? ??? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ? ?? ???????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ? 1 ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????-???? ?? ??-????? ??? ?????? ??????-?? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????????-?????????? ??? - ??????? ??????-?? ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ?- ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? -?-?/???/??-????, ?????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ??????? - ????????????? ? ?????, ( ????? ????? ) ???? ??? ????????-?????????? ??? - ??????? ??????-?? ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ?- ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? -?-?/???/??-????, ?????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ??????? - ????????????? ? ?????, ( ????? ????? ) ???? 54. Thereafter, vide office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001, options were invited from all the employees working in the institute at Lucknow with regard to their absorption within thirty days. Copy of the office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001 has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. In response to the office memorandum dated 25. 4. 2001, the petitioner has submitted her option vide letter dated 9. 5. 2001, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. SR-1 to the writ petition. The option submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the institute at Lucknow. 55. In spite of the fact that the petitioners option was accepted and she was regularised by the resolution of the Board of Management from 25. 1. 2000 (supra), the then Vice Chancellor vide letter dated 23. 4. 2005 (Annexure-14) had informed the petitioner that she does not fulfil the minimum qualification required under the U. G. C. norms. The letter also indicates that necessary procedure has not been followed while regularising the petitioners services by order dated 16. 5. 2001. However, there is not even a whisper with regard to incompetence of the Board of Management to pass resolution for the petitioners regularisation in its meeting dated 5. 5. 2001. The letter does not disclose how and in what manner, the petitioner does not possess minimum qualification and how the office memorandum dated 16. 5. 2001 is violative of certain procedure prescribed by law. It does not disclose what procedural illegality has been committed while issuing office memorandum dated 16. 5. 2001. In response to letter dated 23. 4. 2005, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 12. 5. 2005 (Annexure No. 24) indicating therein the factual position that she possesses minimum qualification and also fulfil U. G. C. norms and 2 her regularisation was done by the Board of Management. 5. 2001. In response to letter dated 23. 4. 2005, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 12. 5. 2005 (Annexure No. 24) indicating therein the factual position that she possesses minimum qualification and also fulfil U. G. C. norms and 2 her regularisation was done by the Board of Management. It appears that instead of deciding the petitioners representation by a speaking and reasoned order, for the reasons best known to the Vice Chancellor, he constituted a Screening Committee in pursuance to Rule 5 of the Rules of "bhatkhande Music Institute, Lucknow". The Screening Committee seems to have submitted a report dated 16. 5. 2005 holding that the petitioner does not possess minimum qualification which was placed in the meeting of the Board of Management alleged to be held on 18. 5. 2005, in which a resolution was passed to revert back the petitioner to Almora. 56. The agenda prepared for the Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005 does not contain the date as well as signature of the Registrar or any other competent authority. The copy of the agenda filed with regard to the report of the Registrar indicates that at item No. 5, there is a reference of meeting of the Screening Committee dated 15. 4. 2005. However, by pen, another date of 16. 5. 2005 has been added. The proceeding containing names of the members of the Board of Management as well as Vice Chancellor appearing in the meeting dated 18. 5. 2005 and at bottom, it has been signed by the Vice Chancellor as its Chairman. Though, it is said that the agenda was circulated before fifteen days but from the material on record, it appears that the Screening Committee has sent its report only on 16. 5. 2005 which has been later on added in the alleged agenda meant for the meeting of 18. 5. 2005. 57. The proceeding of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 does not possess attendance sheet containing the signature of the members who attended the same though according to the records, supplied by the respondents to the Registrar in the Boards meeting dated 5. 5. 2001, 12 members have signed the proceeding/attendance sheet along with its Chairman Shri Shailesh Krishna. Once the Screening Committee has submitted its report on 16. 5. 5. 2001, 12 members have signed the proceeding/attendance sheet along with its Chairman Shri Shailesh Krishna. Once the Screening Committee has submitted its report on 16. 5. 2005, then how and in what manner the alleged agenda may be treated to be circulated prior to 15 days as required under Rule ? No plausible explanation has been given. The Registrar has noted that vide letter dated 27. 4. 2005, the Vice Chancellor Pt. Vidyadhar Vyas had fixed the date of meeting for May 18, 2005. The letter contains the names of 12 members of the Board of Management. It has been noted by the Registrar that the agenda prepared for the meeting of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 has neither been approved by the Vice Chancellor nor signed by anybody, though The Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 has been signed by the Vice Chancellor. No attendance sheet has been produced to establish that members of requisite number (quorum) were present in Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005. 58. The agenda shows that the Finance Committee meeting took place on 30. 4. 2005 but the record reveals that the proceeding of the meeting of the Finance Committee was signed by the Vice Chancellor 3 on later date and circulated by Prashashnik Adhikari on 17. 5. 2005, i. e. just a day before the meeting of the Board of Management which was held on 18. 5. 2005. Circulation of the outcome of the meeting of the Finance Committee on 17. 5. 2005 is indicative of the fact that it was not held on 30. 4. 2005 but held on some later date and the outcome was circulated on 17. 5. 2005. 59. Similarly, though the agenda at item No. 4 indicates that the meeting of the Academic Council took place on 20. 4. 2005 but its report was circulated only on 13. 5. 2005, i. e. three days before the meeting of the Board of Management. This fact indicates that the things were managed with oblique motive and the agenda was not circulated prior to fifteen days of the Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005. This fact is also supported from the evidence on record that the report of the Screening Committee dated 16. 5. This fact indicates that the things were managed with oblique motive and the agenda was not circulated prior to fifteen days of the Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005. This fact is also supported from the evidence on record that the report of the Screening Committee dated 16. 5. 2005 has been referred in the agenda by adding, "issued" written by pen at item No. 5 of the agenda. It is sorry state of affairs on the part of the university authorities while discharging their statutory obligations. 60. Moreover, once the petitioners service was merged in the institute at Lucknow by office memorandum dated 13. 4. 2000, before creation of deemed university, the terms and conditions of appointment/service was protected by Government Order dated 24. 10. 2000, it was not open to review by Board. 61. It is settled proposition of law that in case authorities want to do a thing then that should be done in the manner provided by the Act or statute and not otherwise, vide Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527 , Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077 ; State of U. P. Vs. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295 , (Para 34) Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266 ; Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296 ; Dhanajay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 , Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633 ; Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M. P. , AIR 2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657 , Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch. D. 426; Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ramchandra Keshav Adke Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 ; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573 ; State of Bihar and others Vs. J. A. C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326 , A. K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160 ; State of Mizoram VS. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573 ; State of Bihar and others Vs. J. A. C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326 , A. K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160 ; State of Mizoram VS. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156 ; J. N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520 ; Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281 ; and Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad (1998) 8 SCC 266. 4 Respondent No. 1 has not followed the procedure prescribed by rules while convening the Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005, hence the decision taken to revert back to Almora is nullity in law. 62. While perusing the original record on 26. 3. 2009 in the presence of the parties counsel, it has been noted that the respondents have not acted fairly while holding the meeting of the Board of Management on 18. 5. 2005. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the order-sheet dated 26. 3. 2009. For convenience, the observations made by this Court on 26. 3. 2009 is reproduced as under : "honble Devi Prasad Singh,j. Honble V. D. Chaturvedi, J. With the assistance of Sri B. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shreesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-institute, we have perused the original record. As noted by the Registrar in his report, the Agenda circulated to convene the Boards meeting dated 15. 5. 2004, does not contain any date. The covering letter which contains signature of Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas, was having letter number but the same has been erased. It does not contain the date. There is an Attendance Sheet of Boards meeting dated 15. 5. 2004 which has been signed by Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas, Dr. Durg Singh Chauhan, Dr. R. D. Sahay, Dr. Yogendra Nath Yogi, Prof. Narendra Nath Dhar, Smt. Beena Singh, Sri Shitla Prasad Misra, Dr. Ranjana Dwivedi and Sri R. P. Singh. The Attendance Sheet contains the name of his Excellency the Governor as Chairman of the Committee and Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas, Vice Chancellor has been referred to be participated as member. However, Attendance Sheet has not been signed by his Excellency the Governor, Sri Shambhu Nath, Special Secretary to Governor and Sri C. N. Dubey, Secretary to the Cultural Department. The Attendance Sheet contains the name of his Excellency the Governor as Chairman of the Committee and Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas, Vice Chancellor has been referred to be participated as member. However, Attendance Sheet has not been signed by his Excellency the Governor, Sri Shambhu Nath, Special Secretary to Governor and Sri C. N. Dubey, Secretary to the Cultural Department. The Minutes of the Boards Meeting dated 15. 5. 2004 has been signed by Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas which indicates the presence of 8 members although the minutes does not contain their signatures. The eight members are Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas, Dr. Durg Singh Chauhan, Dr. R. D. Sahay, Dr. Yogendra Nath Yogi, Prof. Narendra Nath Dhar, Smt. Beena Singh, Sri Shitla Prasad Misra and Dr. Ranjana Dwivedi. The original agenda of the meeting dated 18. 5. 2005 does not contain any covering letter and also does not contain any signature and date of the authorities of the institute. At item no. 5 of the Agenda, a 5 reference has been made of screening committee dated 15. 4. 2005 and by pen manually dated 16. 5. 2005 has been added which indicates that the screening committee had submitted its report on 16. 5. 2005. The minutes of the Meeting of the Board dated 18. 5. 2005 contains the names of eight members, namely, Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas, Prof. Narendra Nath Dhar, Dr. Yogendra Nath Yogi Smt. Beena Singh, Sri Shitla Prasad Misra, Dr. Smt. Ranjana Dwivedi, Smt. Geti Kanasu and Sri O. P. Sharma. The minutes of the meeting does not indicate as to where the meeting was convened and who presided the meeting. Although adjacent to the name of Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas he has been referred as Chairman of the Meeting. The minutes seem to be signed by Dr. Vidyadhar Vyas. Like earlier meeting, duly signed attendance sheet of the members who were present in the meeting of the Board on 18. 5. 2005, is not on record. On query made by the Court, Sri Shreesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-institute, on the basis of instructions received, submits that the Attendance Sheet of Boards Meeting dated 18. 5. 2005 is not available on the record of the institute. Arguments could not be concluded. Rejoinder Affidavit is not on record. The office is directed to trace out and place on record. 5. 2005 is not available on the record of the institute. Arguments could not be concluded. Rejoinder Affidavit is not on record. The office is directed to trace out and place on record. In case, it is not available, the parties may supply the same by tomorrow. Put up tomorrow. The original record may be kept under sealed cover. 63. In view of the above, the resolution of the Board dated 18. 5. 2005 seems to be farce and sham and has been prepared without holding the Boards meeting in accordance with rules. The affect of Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 6 64. The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, in short Act, promulgated by Parliament for bifurcation of State of U. P. and creation of State of Uttaranchal was published in the official gazette on 25. 8. 2000. Section 3 of the Act provide for the formation of State of Uttaranchal containing specified territories other than specified in Section 3. For convenience, Sections 3 and 4 are reproduced as under : "3. Formation of Uttaranchal State.- On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of Uttaranchal comprising the following territories of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh, namely : Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli, Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Udham Singh Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat, Rudraprayag and Hardwar districts, and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh. "4. State of Uttar Pradesh and territorial divisions thereof.- On and from the appointed day, the State of Uttar Pradesh shall comprise the territories of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh other than those specified in Section 3. 65. Provisions with regard to services after appointing day has been dealt with under Chapter III of the Act. Section 72 contains provisions with regard to All India Services and Section 73 contains provisions with regard to other services. Section 73 provides that every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of U. P. shall on and from that day provisionally continue to serve the State of Uttar Pradesh unless the Central Government decides otherwise. It further provides that after lapse of one year, every direction under the said sub section shall be issued in consultation of the government of the successor State. It further provides that after lapse of one year, every direction under the said sub section shall be issued in consultation of the government of the successor State. Thus, the services of the persons who were working in the State of U. P. with appointed day is protected by Section 73. For convenience, Section 73 is reproduced as under : 73. Provisions relating to other services.- (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal : 7 Provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. " 66. Section 74 of the Act further protects the service conditions of the employees and provides that the condition of service of the employees applicable immediately before the appointed day to the person who is deemed to have been allocated to the State of U. P. or State of Uttaranchal shall not vary to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. For convenience, Section 74 of the Act is reproduced as under : 74. For convenience, Section 74 of the Act is reproduced as under : 74. Other provisions relating to services.- (1) Nothing in this section or in Section 73 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day, the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State : Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh or to the State of Uttaranchal under Section 73 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person.- 8 (a) if he is deemed to have been allocated to any State under Section 73, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State; (b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union in connection with the administration of the Uttaranchal, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union, for the purpose of the rules regulating his conditions of service. (3) The provisions of Section 73, shall not apply in relation to members of any All-India Service. 67. Section 75 of the Act further protects the person serving the State of U. P. on the appointed day and it provides that person serving in the successor State on the appointed day shall continue to hold same post or office and shall be deemed to be duly appointed of office by the Government or the appropriate authority of the successor State. For convenience, Section 75 is reproduced as under : "75. For convenience, Section 75 is reproduced as under : "75. Provisions as to continuance of officers in same post.- (1) Every person who, immediately before the appointed day, is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appropriate authority in that successor State : Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. " 68. Overall reading of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Act reveals that keeping in view the provisions contained in the Act, the respondents or the Board of Management were having no jurisdiction to pass a resolution and the consequential order reverting the petitioners services to the college situate at Almora in the State of Uttaranchal. The impugned order as well as the resolution of the Board of Management seems to be an act of exceeding of jurisdiction and violative of the statutory provisions contained in the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. 9 69. Statutory body or an authority of the State of U. P. have no jurisdiction to transfer or revert a person to other State (Uttarahcnal) or an institution having no jural relationship. The college situated at Almora is no more an associate college of the respondent institution after bifurcation of the State of U. P. and creation of deemed university. 70. Reorganisation Act creates fiction of law and being statutory in nature, its provisions are binding. The State or its authorities or local bodies have no right to take any decision in contravention of the provisions contained in the Reorganisation Act. 71. 70. Reorganisation Act creates fiction of law and being statutory in nature, its provisions are binding. The State or its authorities or local bodies have no right to take any decision in contravention of the provisions contained in the Reorganisation Act. 71. It was observed by Exparte Walten, In Re Levy, (1881) 17 CHD 746 that when a statute eancts that some thing shall be deemed to have been done, which infact and in truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purpose and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to. 72. In East and Dwellings Co. Ltd. versus Finsbury Borough Council (1951)2 All. E. R. 587, Lord Asquith, J observed : "if you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. " The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. " 73. In State of Bombay versus Pandurang Vinayak reported in AIR 1953 SC 244 , Honble Supreme Court held that when a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. The principle enunciated in Pandurang Vinayaks case (supra) has been followed in the cases reported in AIR 1955 SC 661 Bengal Immunity Co. Limited versus State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 352 CIT versus S. Teja Singh. 0 74. In AIR 1966 SC 719 CIT versus Shakuntala, Honble Supreme Court again proceeded to observe that legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion and for that Courts shall not to travel beyond the terms of the section or give the expression a meaning which it does not obviously bear (para 6 ). 75. 0 74. In AIR 1966 SC 719 CIT versus Shakuntala, Honble Supreme Court again proceeded to observe that legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion and for that Courts shall not to travel beyond the terms of the section or give the expression a meaning which it does not obviously bear (para 6 ). 75. In a case reported in AIR 1975 SC 164 Boucher Pierre Andre versus Supdt. Central Jail, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court held that where a legal fiction is created, full effect must be given to it and it should be carried to its logical conclusion (para 3 ). 76. In (1997)1 SCC 650 Gajraj Singh and others versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, after considering a number of earlier cases, Honble Supreme Court observed as under : "22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal fiction is one which is not an actual reality and which the law recognises and the court accepts as a reality. Therefore, in case of legal fiction the court believes something to exist which in reality does not exist. It is nothing but a presumption of the existence of the state of affairs which in actuality is non-existent. The effect of such a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under the circumstances. " Aforesaid proposition of law has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (2004)6 SCC 59 State of West Bengal versus Sadan K. Bormal, (2005)3 SCC 161 State of A. P. versus Pensioners Association, (2000)2 SCC 699 State of Maharashtra versus Laljit Rajshi Shah, (2008) 5 SCC 257 UCO Bank versus Rajinder Lal Kapoor. 77. In view of legal fiction created by the Reorganisation Act, 2000, after appointed day (25. 8. 2000), neither the respondent institution nor its Board of Management was having jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner to Almora in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. 78. RIVAL ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND FINDINGS While defending the action, learned counsel for the respondent institution Shri Shirish Kumar stated that setting aside of the impugned order shall amount to revival of the illegal order, order of transfer passed by the State was an act of exceeding of jurisdiction. 78. RIVAL ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND FINDINGS While defending the action, learned counsel for the respondent institution Shri Shirish Kumar stated that setting aside of the impugned order shall amount to revival of the illegal order, order of transfer passed by the State was an act of exceeding of jurisdiction. The Board has got right to review its 1 jurisdiction and the Board of Management should not have regularised the services of the petitioner and other employees since the appointment itself was illegal and violative of rules. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any equitable relief since the order of regularisation was passed without authority. Moreover, since the opposite party No. 4 has been appointed, now it cannot be set aside. 79. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the petitioners counsel Mr. B. R. Singh that the appointment was lawfully done on ad hoc basis by duly constituted Selection Committee and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the petitioners transfer to Lucknow was not illegal and suffers from no infirmity. 80. The learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the Reorganisation Act, 2000 with the submission that the petitioner cannot be sent back to Almora after appointed day. According to him, the meeting of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 itself was farce and fraud, hence vitiates the entire action. Validity of the petitioners appointment, regularisation and genuineness and legality of the Boards meeting dated 18. 5. 2005 has been considered in the preceding paras. 81. Setting aside of the impugned order shall not amount to revival of any illegal order. Accordingly, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the cases reported in 1999 (8) SCC 16 Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo versus State of Bihar and others and 2009 (2)SCC 641 Parents Association of Students versus M. A. Khan and another is not attracted. 82. It is also incorrect to say that the petitioners appointment at Lucknow was an appointment through transfer; rather the petitioner was transferred to Lucknow in terms of the appointment letter on eye- ailment. The transfer order does not indicate that the petitioner was appointed at Lucknow; rather he was transferred by the State Government as all the three institutions/branches were part and parcel of the Cultural Department. The transfer order does not indicate that the petitioner was appointed at Lucknow; rather he was transferred by the State Government as all the three institutions/branches were part and parcel of the Cultural Department. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment reported in AIR 1993 SC 1974 Ram Prakash Makkar versus State of Haryana and others seems to be mis-conceived. It is not a case of appointment on transfer basis; rather it is a case of simple transfer where the petitioner was transferred from Almora to Lucknow in the same department vide order dated 14. 6. 1999, followed by order dated 14. 2. 2000 and then 15. 3. 2000. 83. There appears to be no dispute with regard to the fact that ordinarily, the administrative authority may review its earlier order on justifiable ground as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1980 (3) SCC 402 R. R. Verma versus Union of India but that should be done fairly and honestly in 2 accordance with rules and not in an arbitrary manner with commission of fraud. The Vice Chancellor should have acted fairly in accordance with rules while convening the meeting of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 but as is evident, there appears to be deliberate misrepresentation of facts and the commission of fraud. 84. It is true that the regularisation is not a mode of appointment and the authorities while proceeding to regularise the services have to act in accordance with relevant statutory rules and within jurisdiction. It is also true that illegal appointment cannot be regularised vide (2006)2 SCC 716 M. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and another versus S. C. Pandey, (2006)5 SCC 493 National Fertilizers Limited and others versus Somvir Singh, (2006)1 SCC 667 State of U. P. versus Neeraj Awasthi and others and (2007)1 SCC 408 . However, in the present case, when the services of the petitioner along with others were regularised by the Board of Management, there was no statutory service rules. No material has been brought on record to indicate that the petitioners initial appointment was illegal or he was not possessing minimum qualification required for the purpose in the year 1991. As discussed (supra), the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis through a duly constituted Selection Committee. No material has been brought on record to indicate that the petitioners initial appointment was illegal or he was not possessing minimum qualification required for the purpose in the year 1991. As discussed (supra), the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis through a duly constituted Selection Committee. She has taken over charge at Lucknow in terms of the appointment letter. Later on, she resumed duty at Almora. Her post was transferred to Lucknow. The Head of Department was having jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner to Lucknow keeping in view the terms and conditions given in the appointment letter. The Board of Management was competent to consider for regularisation in terms of the power conferred by Rules after government notification issued for establishment of deemed university. Steps taken by the Board of Management to regularise the services of all serving employees keeping in view their qualification cannot be faulty. Whenever a college is granted the status of deemed university, then the career of serving employees cannot be put to jeopardy but it shall always be open to the Board of Management to consider the regularisation of such serving old employees for regularisation and absorption in newly established institute/deemed university, subject to possession of minimum qualification. 85. It is not a case where fresh recruitment was done by institute after attaining the status of deemed university but the case of old employees was considered for regularisation. The Board of Management was having jurisdiction to consider for regularisation. There was no service rule in existence governing the service conditions, hence being the highest supervisory body possessing persons of very high academic career, legal acumenship and executive officers, the decision taken by the Board of Management does not seem to suffer from impropriety or arbitrariness. 3 The service rules framed in the year 2002 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to the persons with regard to whom decision has been taken earlier. 2002 Rules is prospective in nature, hence it cannot be given retrospective effect vide (1990)1 SCC 411 Mahendran and others versus State of Karnataka and others and 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 D. P. Sharma and others versus Union of India and another. 86. 2002 Rules is prospective in nature, hence it cannot be given retrospective effect vide (1990)1 SCC 411 Mahendran and others versus State of Karnataka and others and 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 D. P. Sharma and others versus Union of India and another. 86. Relying upon the cases, reported in (2008)13 SCC 170 Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and others and (2007)1 SCC 408 Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited versus Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, it has been submitted that the petitioners long continuance in service shall not make out a case for equitable relief. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be mis-conceived. In the present case, the Board of Management has regularised the petitioners services along with others within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not the question to grant equitable relief but the question is with regard to the petitioners statutory rights as well as fundamental rights to remain in service with all benefits keeping in view resolution of the Board of Management dated 5. 5. 2001. Nothing has been brought on record to hold that the Board of Management was not competent to pass the resolution, or some statutory rules and regulations have been violated while regularising the services of the petitioner along with others. Being highest body of the newly established deemed university possessing autonomous status, the Board was competent to regularise the services. In the year 2001, there was no service rules in operation and being newly constituted deemed university, it was natural for the Board of Management to take care of its old serving employees keeping in view their academic record, experience and knowledge. 87. Learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the judgment and order, reported in (2001)6 SCC 292 K. A. Abdul Majeed versus State of Kerala and others stated that the appointment of opposite party No. 4 may not be set aside since she is serving since last more than three years. With regard to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noted that the appointment letter of the opposite party No. 4 itself indicates that she was appointed subject to outcome of the present writ petition. The nature of appointment was conditional. With regard to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noted that the appointment letter of the opposite party No. 4 itself indicates that she was appointed subject to outcome of the present writ petition. The nature of appointment was conditional. Accordingly, no fundamental or statutory right of the respondent No. 4 shall be violated even if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is restored in service and the respondent No. 4 is deprived of her present job. It has already been observed that the then Vice Chancellor or the authorities of the institute at Lucknow had not acted fairly. The agenda which is unsigned and undated and contains an item No. 5 with regard to Screening Committee, at the face of record seems to be interpolated. The report of the Screening Committee was prepared on 16. 5. 2005 but it has been indicated to be prepared almost fifteen days back. Dates have been erased in the covering letter of the Vice Chancellor (supra) and things have been done in hasty manner to meet out the requirement of law. Virtually, the entire procedure adopted for the resolution of 18. 5. 2005 seems to be farce and sham. There appears to be commission of fraud. 88. Apart from above, in case the status of deemed university would not have been granted, to the respondent institute, the petitioners case could have very well been considered under the Regularisation Rules, namely, The U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, in short 1979 Rules. The 1979 Rules have been framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 relates to regularisation of ad hoc employees, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under : "4. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.- (1) any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the rules third Amendment Rules 2001 (20. 12. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments.- (1) any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the rules third Amendment Rules 2001 (20. 12. 2001) (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. " 89. It may be noted that one other Regularisation Rules was framed for the regularisation of services of promotee government employees who were appointed on ad hoc basis or before 30. 6. 1998, namely the U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Promotions (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 which covers the cases where regularisation is to be done on promotional post. In view of the above, keeping in view the nature of appointment on ad hoc basis, the petitioners services could have very well be considered for regularisation being appointed prior to 30. 6. 1998. A faint argument was advanced that later on, the petitioners services were converted to contractual. The decision to convert contractual was unilateral which was impugned in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and its implementation is stayed. Needless to say that the terms and conditions of appointment cannot be changed unilaterally. However, question loses its significance after transfer and absorption against vacant post in the institute at Lucknow. 5 However, after creation of the deemed university and merger of the petitioners services in the deemed university, the effect of Regularisation Rules need not be considered at this stage. 90. Much emphasis has been given by Mr. Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Counsel to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court, reported in (1998)3 SCC 88 Dr Meera Massey (Mrs) and others versus Dr. S. R. Mehrotra and others. In the case of Meera Massey (supra), the post of Lecturer was filled up from the subordinate cadre of Research Associates/evaluators without any resolution of the Executive Council for the purpose. S. R. Mehrotra and others. In the case of Meera Massey (supra), the post of Lecturer was filled up from the subordinate cadre of Research Associates/evaluators without any resolution of the Executive Council for the purpose. Though Honble supreme Court observed that ad hocism should not perpetuate and the vacancies may be filled up in accordance with rules but also ruled that regularisation should not be done dehors the rules. Their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court observed that in case the university was of the view that the promotional avenues should have been filled up by promotion, then than should have been done by specific resolution of the Executive Council instead of taking shelter of equity, justice and fair play. Relevant portion from the judgment of eera Massey (supra) is reproduced as under : "22. . . In the present case, the Executive Council has not resolved to fill up the post of Lecturers by way of promotion but to treat the incumbents already working therein to be regularised. Even if it has power, it never resolved as such. There is distinction between regularisation and promotion. Regularisation means, one which is already working, doing or has done something which law did not permit but the same is being regularised, treated to be done in accordance with law, treat one as such. Hence in such cases regularisation cannot be said to be a promotion as contemplated under Ordinance 35. 8. " Though the promotion was done on the higher post without due resolution of the Executive Council but keeping in view the eleven years of service rendered by the appointees, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court have not disturbed the appointment (para 28 ). The facts and circumstances of Dr. Meera Massey (supra) seems to be not applicable in the present case. The services were regularised of all the old employees by the resolution of the Executive Council (supra ). 91. Now coming to the effect of fraud, committed in passing the Boards resolution dated 18. 5. 2005. In Blacks Law Dictionary, fraud has been defined as under : "fraud. n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful)it may be a crime. 6 2. 5. 2005. In Blacks Law Dictionary, fraud has been defined as under : "fraud. n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful)it may be a crime. 6 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. 4. Unconscionable dealing; esp. , in contract law, the unconscientious use of the power arising out of the parties relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. " 92. In Websters Third New International Dictionary, the fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over and other or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. 93. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, fraud has been defined as a criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage, dishonest trick. 94. According to Halsburys Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false and therefore, a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. 95. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as an act committed by a party to a contract with intention to deceive another. 96. Thus from dictionary meaning and otherwise also, fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue, yet he succeeds in misleading the presente by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was fraud. 97. In Pankaj Bhargava versus Mohinder Nath, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1233 , Honble Supreme Court observed that fraud in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provision of a statute. 99. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was fraud. 97. In Pankaj Bhargava versus Mohinder Nath, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1233 , Honble Supreme Court observed that fraud in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provision of a statute. 99. According to Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edition, page 79, "if a statute has been passed for some particular purpose, a Court of Law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope. " 100. Virtually, the Vice Chancellor has committed fraud on the institute and acted deceitfully while convening the meeting of the Board of Management on 18. 5. 2005. 101. Honble supreme Court in a case reported in (1992)1 SCC 534 Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) versus M/s Shaw Brothers while considering the concempt of fraud on statute observed that it relates to abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. Their Lordships have proceeded to observe as under : "20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. " 102. In R. K. Dalmia and others versus The Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821 , Honble Supreme Court held that if the intention with which a false document is made is to conceal a fraudulent or dishonest act which had been previously committed, that intention could not be other than an intention to commit fraud. 103. " 102. In R. K. Dalmia and others versus The Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821 , Honble Supreme Court held that if the intention with which a false document is made is to conceal a fraudulent or dishonest act which had been previously committed, that intention could not be other than an intention to commit fraud. 103. In Ram Chandra Singh versus Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319 , Honble Supreme Court while referring the earlier judgment observed that the fraudulent act should be viewed by Courts seriously. Relevant portion from Ram Chandra Singhs case is reproduced as under : "21. In Bigelow on Fraudulent Conveyances, at p. 1, it is stated: "if on the facts the average man would have intended wrong, that is enough. " It was further opined : 8 "this conception of fraud (and since it is not the writers, he may speak of it without diffidence), steadily kept in view, will render the administration of the law less difficult, or rather will make its administration more effective. Further, not to enlarge upon the last matter, it will do away with much of the prevalent confusion in regard to moral fraud, a confusion which, in addition to other things, often causes lawyers to take refuge behind such convenient and indeed useful but often obscure language as fraud upon the law. What is fraud upon the law ? Fraud can be committed only against a being capable of rights, and fraud upon the law darkens counsel. What is really aimed at in most cases by this obscure contrast between moral fraud and fraud upon the law, is a contrast between fraud in the individuals intention to commit the wrong and fraud as seen in the obvious tendency of the act in question. " "22. Recently this Court by an order dated 3. 9. 2003 in Ram Preeti Yadav versus U. P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education held : (SCC pp. 316-317, paras 13-15) "13. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. (See Derry v. Peek ). 14. 316-317, paras 13-15) "13. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. (See Derry v. Peek ). 14. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court of Appeal stated the law thus : (All ER p. 345 C-D) I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgmens, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; 15. In S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath this Court stated that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. " "23. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. " 9 "26. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. it has been held that : (SCC p. 553, para 20) "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. " 104. In Lillykutty versus Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST and others (2005)8 SCC 283 , while reiterating the observations made in the case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra), Honble Supreme Court observed as under : "26. Yet recently in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar versus State of Maharashtra a Division Bench of this Court inter alia following Ram Chandra Singh and other decisions observed : (SCC p. 614, para 15) "15[17]. fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. " "27. fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. " "27. In Lazarus Estates Limited v. Beasley the Court of Appeal stated the law thus : (All ER p. 345 C) "i cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever. " 105. In Baburao Dagdu Paralkar versus State of Maharastra reported in (2005)7 SCC 605 , Honble Supreme Court observed that fraud means an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill will towards the other is immaterial. 106. In Prem Singh versus Birbal (2006)5 SCC 353 , Honble Supreme Court held that fraudulent misrepresentation as regards character of a document is void. 0 107. In view of above, the resolution of the Board of Management of 18. 5. 2005 being an outcome of fraudulent act on the part of the then Vice Chancellor loses its sanctity and cannot be given effect. It neither creates any right in favour of beneficiary nor any wrong to the sufferer. The outcome of fraud neither causes any prejudice to a person nor benefit to other person for whom such fraud is being committed. Keeping in view this very well settled provision of law, since the impugned order is an outcome of a decision which was taken not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also by interpolation of records, it shall not be sustainable. FINDINGS 108. To sum up :- 1. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as teacher vide order dated 24. 3. 1990 (Annexure-7) through a duly constituted Selection Committee. She was possessing requisite qualification provided under rules at the time of appointment. She also possessed required qualifications even under U. G. C. Regulations as discussed in the preceding paras. FINDINGS 108. To sum up :- 1. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as teacher vide order dated 24. 3. 1990 (Annexure-7) through a duly constituted Selection Committee. She was possessing requisite qualification provided under rules at the time of appointment. She also possessed required qualifications even under U. G. C. Regulations as discussed in the preceding paras. (2) Keeping in view the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter, the petitioner was not appointed exclusively for Almora branch; rather her appointment was transferable to all three branches of Bhatkhand Sangeet Mahavidyalaya and the Government has acted within jurisdiction while transferring the petitioners services to Lucknow. The order of absorption at Lucknow against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher, passed by the Government was perfectly within jurisdiction and does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. All the three institutes were belonging to the same department, i. e. the Department of Cultural Affairs, Government of U. P. (3) After creation of the deemed university, the Board of Management had acted within jurisdiction to absorb and regularise the services of the petitioner and other teachers after circulating the agenda. In absence of service rules, the Board of Management of the newly created deemed university was justified to regularise the services of its old teachers and staff to meet out the exigencies of service subject to possession of minimum qualification. The resolution for regularisation dated 16. 5. 2001 does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Moreover, no illegality has been pointed out by the respondents with regard to competence of the Board of Management to regularise the services. 1 (4) The resolution of the Board of Management dated 18. 5. 2005 was farce and sham (supra ). The then Vice Chancellor has committed fraud by interpolating the record. The meeting was not convened by circulating agenda before fifteen days required under the rules. The records were managed and interpolated. Neither the agenda was circulated before fifteen days nor the attendance sheet of the members who participated in the Boards meeting has been preserved. (5) In view of the Reorganisation Act, 2000, after appointed day, i. e. 25. 8. 2000, the respondent newly created deemed university loses its Jurial relationship with the Almora Branch which falls within the State of Uttaranchal. (5) In view of the Reorganisation Act, 2000, after appointed day, i. e. 25. 8. 2000, the respondent newly created deemed university loses its Jurial relationship with the Almora Branch which falls within the State of Uttaranchal. The Board of Management/respondent university had acted without jurisdiction in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Reoganisation Act, 2000 by reverting back the petitioner to Almora Branch which falls in the State of Uttaranchal. Neither the university nor the State Government can send back the petitioner to Almora which falls within the State of Uttranchal, by fiction of law, created under the Reorganisation Act, 2000. (6) The appointment of the private respondent is conditional and subject to outcome of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, hence no statutory or fundamental right of the private respondent shall be violated in case the petitioner is restored in service and in consequence thereof, the private respondent is removed. 109. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has been put to suffer on account of fraudulent act on the part of the university authorities, the petitioner seems to be entitled for exemplary cost in view of the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344, Salem Advocate Bar Association (II), Vs. Union of India. 110. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 18. 5. 2005 (Annexure-1) with consequential benefits and exemplary cost assessed to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- which shall be deposited in this Court within one month, out of which, the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- shall be remitted to the Mediation Centre, situated at Lucknow. In case the cost is not deposited, the District Magistrate, Lucknow shall recover as arrears of land revenue and remit to this Court. Registry to take follow-up action. 2 A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 to restore the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Let appropriate order be passed within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of present judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. (Justice V. D. Chaturvedi) (Justice Devi Prasad Singh) .