JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the University. 2. Counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to delete opposite party no. 6 from the cause title on the submission that no question of non-compliance of orders of the Court arises against him. Permission is accorded. 3. The issue in the writ petition was the claim of the petitioner for absorption as an employee in the fourth phase colleges on the post of Accounts Clerk. 4. In the final report submitted by the Agrawal Commission before the Supreme Court based on information supplied by the University the petitioner came to be shown as a Storekeeper. The petitioner had kept objecting to it throughout. The writ court noticed the observations of the Supreme Court that mistakes of names and descriptions of employees in the Report of the Commission on the point may be brought to attention of the Universities concerned by the affected employees and it will be open to the University to undertake enquiry and verification of the records to rectify and rely upon the report of the Commission with the necessary corrections in the name and descriptions of the employees. 5. The University steadfastly refused to consider the petitioners representation relying upon the recommendation of the Agrawal Commission before the Supreme Court. The writ court did not uphold the objection of the University in view of the observations of the Supreme Court aforesaid and gave direction to consider his case for absorption on the post of Accounts Clerk in accordance with law (sic on ?) his representation. That not having been done the present proceedings came to be initiated. 6. From the show cause filed on behalf of the University it goes beyond the pale of any controversy that the petitioner was working in the Accounts Section on the relevant date. 7. Counsel for the University made a feeble attempt to suggest that in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court only the name and description of the employee could be changed and not nature of the work. The interpretation being put by the University is difficult to accept. 7. Counsel for the University made a feeble attempt to suggest that in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court only the name and description of the employee could be changed and not nature of the work. The interpretation being put by the University is difficult to accept. If the objection was with regard to the name and description of an employee in the report of the Commission, in the background of a claim for absorption after the name, the word description naturally and only related to the nature of work being done by the employee on the relevant date, The description could not be read as description of the address or residence of the employee concerned. There can reasonably be no other connotation of the word description. 8. The next submission is nothing but a reiteration of the objection taken earlier in the writ petition that the recommendation of the Commission was final and the University could do nothing about it. 9. The show cause filed by the University is completely silent on its understanding of the limited direction of the Supreme Court for further enquiry. It is unfortunate that the University without having a defence is insisting on litigating and refuses to take a clear specific stand on the observations made by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a little caution on the part of administration of the University may have prevented not only unwanted litigation before the Court but also saved the University from unnecessary legal expenses. 10. The Court is satisfied that the defence being taken on behalf of the University is no defence at all in a contempt proceeding and it could have framed charge against the University in the nature of the show cause, it refrains from doing so. 11. In view of the stand taken by the University itself at paragraph 8 of the show cause the petitioner is held entitled to be considered for absorption as an Accounts Clerk in accordance with law in the light of the fresh enquiry done by the University and the admission made by it in the show cause. 12. Let the same be done within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before the University. 13. The writ application stands disposed.