JUDGMENT (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 1- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply the service conditions of petitioner given in his appointment letter dated 11-5-1990 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition). 2- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to shift the petitioner from the IIT Roorkee in case the center of AVRC is shifted out side the IIT Roorkee and further he would be absorbed and adjusted in the other department of IIT Roorkee as per his service condition. 3- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the enhanced pay scale and all other benefits as available to the similar situated employees in the IIT Roorkee. 4- To issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5- Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition, according to the petitioner are that I.I.T. Roorkee advertised on 3.2.1989 few vacancies in its department, Audio visual research Center (in short A.V.R.C.), including the post of one Senior Lab Technician. The petitioner applied for the post of Senior Lab Technician as per guide lines given in the advertisement. The petitioner was called for interview before a selection committee headed by pro-vice-chancellor and he was selected. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected against the post of Senior Lab Technician, but the respondent appointed him on the post of Proygshala Technical( Lab Technician). The appointment letter dated 11-05-1990 shows that appointing authority was the Registrar of University of Roorkee( now IIT Roorkee) and the petitioner was to be governed by the rules and regulations made by the University of Roorkee. Condition Nos. 8 and 10 of the appointment letter makes provision that the petitioner may be appointed in any department of University of Roorkee and he may be transferred to Paper Technology Institution Saharanpur, an ancillary organization of the I.I.T. Roorkee. The Registrar, University of Roorkee issued Office Memorandum dated 8-7-1991 informing the petitioner that he has completed probation period successfully and his service continues to carry-on in future temporarily. The Registrar, University of Roorkee issued Office Memorandum dated 8-7-1991 informing the petitioner that he has completed probation period successfully and his service continues to carry-on in future temporarily. Vide Office Memorandum dated 18-9-1993, the Registrar, I.I.T. Roorkee appointed the petitioner Ty.S.L.T. on the recommendation of the Director, A.V.R.C. and as per report of selection committee in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 with effect from 12.5.1993 on the basic pay of Rs. 1400/- plus D.A. and other allowance as per University Rules. The petitioner was also given all the benefits including issuance of identity card, employment number, medical booklet and other facilities as available to the regular employees of the University. In the income tax form No.16 the Registrar has been shown the employer of petitioner. In the year 2001 the name of University of Roorkee was changed as Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. On 7-6-2003 the Board of Governors I.I.T. Roorkee in its sixth meeting resolved to send a request to U.G.C. to close the AVRC from I.I.T. Roorkee and shift it to the other University along with equipment and staff. Thereafter the petitioner gave representation dated 30-7-2003 to the authority concerned stating therein that he is the employee of I.I.T. Roorkee and as per service condition he cannot be shifted from IIT Roorkee to any other place except its ancillary organization i.e. Paper Technology Institution Saharanpur. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he made several other representation but no heed was paid. Vide General Officer Order No. EMMRC/Order/05/102 dated 1-7-2005 issued by the Director EMMRC, IIT Roorkee all the staff members of EMMRC (AVRC) have been directed to take no dues from I.I.T. Roorkee which clear shows that the respondent wants to throw out the petitioner from the I.I.T. Roorkee. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the A.V.R.C. was opened in University of Roorkee on the request of University of Roorkee itself. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the A.V.R.C. was opened in University of Roorkee on the request of University of Roorkee itself. Considering the proposal of the University and after the recommendation of the task force constituted for the same the U.G.C. was pleased to permit to open a new center permanently named as A.V.R.C. in the University and name of the center was changed on 14.1.2005 as E.M.M.R.C. (Educational Multi Media Research Centre) and if A.V.R.C. has been shifted outside I.I.T. Roorkee the persons employed in AVRC including the petitioner be absorbed in the other departments of I.I.T. Roorkee ad the pay scale be enhanced and all benefits available to the employees of the University be also provided to the petitioner. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that on conversion of University of Roorkee into an I.I.T. from 21.9.2001 the institution came under the control of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India. The Audio Visual Research Centre (now EMMRC) was a center setup in 1982-83 in the University of Roorkee by the U.G.C. as one of its Media Centres under the Countrywide Classroom Project, as per the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) dated 20-07-1989 signed between the Vice Chancellor, University of Roorkee and the Secretary, U.G.C. Copy of MOU has been annexed as C.A.-2. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that as per MOU the University of Roorkee only provided the building space and administrative support to recruit staff for the AVRC, strictly as per UGC guidelines, U.G.C. pay scales and terms of the MOU. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Registrar of University on behalf of the AVRC/UGC. No master-servant relationship existed between the University and the staff of the AVRC, as the AVRC did not perform any work for the University. Consequent upon the passing of the Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 2002 the University of Roorkee was converted into IIT Roorkee and integrated with the IIT system. The expert committee constituted for conversion of the University in to IIT had recommended integration of all departments and centers into IIT system, except the AVRC, as it was never a part of the University of Roorkee. The expert committee constituted for conversion of the University in to IIT had recommended integration of all departments and centers into IIT system, except the AVRC, as it was never a part of the University of Roorkee. However the matter was reconsidered by the IIT Roorkee, U.G.C. and Consortium for Educational Communication (CEC) and a tri-partite agreement was signed between the parties to establish a Educational Multi Meida Research Centre (EMMRC) in the IIT Campus Roorkee. The MOU had a specific clause No. 3.9 stating that EC will take over the existing staff, assets and liabilities of erstwhile AVRC Roorkee. The petitioner was appointed in the AVRC. At the time of appointment the petitioner was very well aware that the AVRC was not a part of the University of Roorkke but was an independent center fully funded, supervised and under the control of the UGC. The petitioner has no right to be absorbed in I.I.T. Roorkee, since he was never an employee of University. He can not claim the parity with the IIT Roorkee employees in respect of pay scales and facilities etc. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. At the outset it is to be mentioned here that the petitioner has sought the writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to comply the service conditions given in his appointment letter dated 11.5.1990; not to shift the petitioner from the I.I.T. Roorkee and he should be absorbed and adjusted in the other department of I.I.T. Roorkee and to give him enhanced pay scale and all other benefits as available to the similar situated employees in the IIT Roorkee. 7. So far as the compliance of service conditions of the petitioner by the respondents is concerned, condition No.10 is relevant. According to this condition No.10 it was provided that the transfer of petitioner may also be done in the Paper Technology Institute Saharanpur of the University. 7. So far as the compliance of service conditions of the petitioner by the respondents is concerned, condition No.10 is relevant. According to this condition No.10 it was provided that the transfer of petitioner may also be done in the Paper Technology Institute Saharanpur of the University. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner was appointed in AVRC and not for the University of Roorkee as no such temporary post existed in the University and at the time of applying for the post of Temporary Senior Laboratory Technician the petitioner new very well that the AVRC was not a part of the University of Roorkee and it was an independent entity fully funded, supervised and controlled by the UGC. The petitioner also did not perform any work for the University nor he was paid from the University funds, which are mandatory conditions for establishing a master-servant relationship. The mere fact that the service conditions of the university were made applicable to him in general terms did not establish this relationship, although clause 3.4 of the MOU had stated that the media center staff was to be treated at par with the other teaching/non-teaching staff in respect of service conditions and privileges, unless other specific provisions were made by the UGC. It is the further case of respondents that there is no AVRC presence at Saharanpur and in routine by mentioning in the appointment letter that the petitioner may be transferred to Paper Technology Institute at Saharanpur, does not accrue a right to the petitioner for his transfer to Saharanpur, for the simple reasons firstly the petitioner was appointed in AVRC center of U.G.C. and secondly at Saharanpur there is no establishment of AVRC. 8. So far as the prayer for absorbing and adjusting the petitioner in the other department of I.I.T. Roorkee and to give him enhanced pay scale and all other benefits as available to the similar situated employees in the IIT Roorkee, the petitioner was appointed in AVRC strictly as per UGC guidelines, UGC pay scales and terms of the MOU, and the petitioner cannot claim a right of his absorption and adjustment in other department of I.I.T. Roorkee as well as enhancement of pay scale and all other benefits as available to the employees in the IIT Roorkee. 9. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the Registrar of University of Roorkee and his services were lent to U.G.C., but the petitioner still continues to be in the employment of the University and his services cannot be terminated by the third party for whom his services were lent i.e. U.G.C. In support of his submission learned counsel has cited before me the case of The Manager, M/s Pyarchand Kesarimal Porwal Bidi Factory, versus Onkar Laxman Thenge and others, reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 823. 10. I have gone through the above cited case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a contract of service being incapable of transfer unilaterally a transfer of service from one employer to another can only be effected by a tripartite agreement between the employer, the employees and the third party, the effect of which would be to terminate the original contract of service and to make a new contract between the employee and the third party. So long as the contract of service is not terminated, a new contract is not made and the employee continues to be in the employment of the employer. When an employer orders him to do a certain work for another person, the employee still continues to be in his employment. The employee has the right to claim his wages from the employer and not from the third party. The facts of above cited case are different and are not applicable in the case at hand. In the instant case the petitioner was recruited for the AVRC, strictly as per UGC guidelines, UGC pay scales and terms of the MOU. The appointment letter was issued by the Registrar of the University of Roorkee on behalf of the AVRC/UGC since the AVRC had no required staff or the recruitment rules to perform the recruitment functions. No master-servant relationship existed between the University and the staff of AVRC, the petitioner was specifically recruited to produce programmes for the Doordarshan and All India Radio under the Countrywide Classroom Project. The UGC also provided the guidelines for programme production, categories and qualifications of the AVRC staff and the funds, facilities for generation and disseminating the relevant research. No master-servant relationship existed between the University and the staff of AVRC, the petitioner was specifically recruited to produce programmes for the Doordarshan and All India Radio under the Countrywide Classroom Project. The UGC also provided the guidelines for programme production, categories and qualifications of the AVRC staff and the funds, facilities for generation and disseminating the relevant research. As per MOU the University of Roorkee only provided the building space and administrative support to recruit the staff for the AVRC strictly as per UGC guidelines, UGC pay scales and terms of the MOU. Perusal of advertisement Annexure No.1 to the writ petition clearly shows that the vacancies were advertised for the appointment in AVRC and the qualifications etc was applicable as per U.G.C. prescribed qualifications. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was recruited by Registrar of University of Roorkee, trained and governed by the service terms and conditions as applicable to the employees of the University of Roorkee, therefore the petitioner’s services cannot be transferred to AVRC (now EMMRC) by MOU giving retrospective effect to MOU and such action is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission learned counsel has cited the case of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. N.T.P.C. & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 336. 12. The facts of the above cited case are also different and do not match to the facts of the case at hand. In the cited case the employees were recruited, trained, appointed by PSU (NTPC) and governed by service terms and conditions as applicable to NTPC employees. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that these employees cannot be transferred to a private concern on the basis of a bi-partite agreement entered subsequently between NTPC and transferee-employer( BALCO) by giving the agreement a retrospective effect. Such agreement violates Section 23 of Contract Act as well as Article 14 of Constitution of India. 13. Contrary to this, in the case at hand, the petitioner was recruited in AVRC, an independent entity of UGC and not part of University, hence no question arises for transfer of services of petitioner from University of Roorkee to AVRC. Rather AVRC was converted into EMMRC and all the staff of AVRC was shifted to EMMRC. Both the departments AVRC and EMMRC are the units governed by UGC. 14. Rather AVRC was converted into EMMRC and all the staff of AVRC was shifted to EMMRC. Both the departments AVRC and EMMRC are the units governed by UGC. 14. The petitioner has apprehended that by Office Order dated 1.7.2005, Annexure No.11 to the writ petition, the Director Educational Multimedia Research Center IIT Campus Roorkee, wants to throw out the petitioner from service, as no dues form was asked to be obtained from IIT Roorkee. But by a plain reading of the above Office Order, it is quite clear that no dues was required from all staff members of EMMRC for transfer of their CPF maintained in the office of IIT Roorkee and there was no direction to throw out the petitioner or other staff members from the services. On the whole the petitioner was recruited in AVRC an independent entity run by UGC and not part of IIT Roorkee and when the name of AVRC was converted in EMMRC, all the staff of AVRC was shifted to EMMRC. Therefore the petitioner has no cause of action to prefer the present writ petition and the petition is premature on this score also. 15. For the discussions made above, the petitioner cannot claim his absorption and adjustment in the establishment of IIT Roorkee, or his transfer to Paper technology Institute Saharanpur where there is no establishment of AVRC/EMMRC. Further he cannot claim parity of the pay scale and benefits given by IIT Roorkee to its employees. The petitioner is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the writ petition. 16. The writ petition is dismissed.