JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.5350 of 2008, the respondent National Institute of Technology, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the NIT, Patna”) has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 9 and 12, the writ petitioners, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 5350 of 2008 for regularization of their service in the NIT, Patna with effect from 28th January 2004. 3. According to the writ petitioners, pursuant to the public notice dated 14th July 1995, the writ petitioners were appointed on daily wages in Class-III and Class-IV service in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the College”), affiliated to the Patna University, in its Computer Science Studies Centre. Under the Notification dated 28th January 2004, issued by the Government of India, the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna has been taken over by the Government of India as one of the National Institute of Technology and has been renamed as the NIT, Patna. The College has been taken over by the Government of India lock, stock and barrel. The petitioners have thus become employees of the NIT, Patna. Like other employees of the College, the petitioners also are entitled to absorption in regular service in the NIT, Patna. 4. The petition was contested by the Patna University. According to the Patna University, the appointment of the writ petitioners was not approved by the Patna University. The Patna University disowned its liability in respect of the writ petitioners completely. 5. The petition was also contested by the NIT, Patna. According to the NIT, Patna, the NIT, Patna had absorbed the service of the employees of the College whose employment was approved by the Patna University. The appointment of the writ petitioners was not approved by the Patna University, they, therefore, were not absorbed in the service of the NIT, Patna. The NIT, Patna had also made recruitment for appointment to various posts under the public advertisement dated 10th August 2006. The writ petitioners had been extended the benefit of age relaxation so that they could participate in the said recruitment process. Nevertheless, except the petitioner no.7, none else participated in the recruitment process. The NIT, Patna had also made recruitment for appointment to various posts under the public advertisement dated 10th August 2006. The writ petitioners had been extended the benefit of age relaxation so that they could participate in the said recruitment process. Nevertheless, except the petitioner no.7, none else participated in the recruitment process. The petitioner no.7 (respondent no.12) has been selected and absorbed in the regular service in the NIT, Patna. The Board of Governors of the NIT, Patna also had considered the claim of the writ petitioners for regularization in service. The Board, in its meeting held on 12th November 2006, resolved that they cannot be regularized in service but may be allowed to continue to work and be paid wages approved by the State Government for the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers, as may be applicable. 6. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the NIT, Patna to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for regularization in service following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and ors., { (2006) 4 SCC 1 } [:2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363] and in the matter of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2587). Therefore, this Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh has appeared for the appellant. At the outset, he has submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th August 2006, the writ petitioner no.7 had been selected and appointed in the NIT, Patna; the writ petitioner nos.9 and 10 have not been reporting for duty for past three years or more, the relief granted to the writ petitioner nos. 7, 9 and 10, therefore, calls for interference on the aforesaid grounds. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Siya Ram Shahi has appeared for the respondents-writ petitioners. He readily admits that he does not contest this Appeal as far as the writ petitioner nos. 7, 9 and 10 are concerned. He has confined the contest to the respondent nos. 1 to 7, the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8. 9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh has submitted that the writ petitioners were appointed on daily wages by the Computer Science Studies Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Centre”). The said Centre was not a part of the College establishment. He has confined the contest to the respondent nos. 1 to 7, the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 6 and 8. 9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh has submitted that the writ petitioners were appointed on daily wages by the Computer Science Studies Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Centre”). The said Centre was not a part of the College establishment. The said Centre was an independent self-financed body. The Centre was not taken-over by the Government of India; nor does it make part of the NIT, Patna. The question of regularizing the service of the writ petitioners should not arise. He has taken us through the documents brought on the record. 10. The Appeal is contested by learned advocate Mr. Siya Ram Shahi appearing for the writ petitioners. He has supported the judgment of the learned single Judge. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi has submitted that on the date of take-over, as many as 197 posts in Class-III and Class-IV service in the ministerial establishment of the College were sanctioned. All Class-III and IV employees appointed on sanctioned posts were absorbed by the NIT, Patna. Thereafter also several vacancies on sanctioned posts were available and are still available. He has submitted that it is too late in the day to submit that the Centre was not part of the College establishment and that it was not taken-over by the Government of India. 11. In support of their claim, the writ petitioners have brought on record the memorandum of association of the NIT, Patna. 12. The claim of the writ petitioners for regularization in service in the NIT, Patna is based on the assertion that they were appointed in the Centre by the College after regular recruitment against the sanctioned posts/permanent vacancies. 13. Let us examine, whether the Centre was part of the College and whether the initial appointment of the writ petitioners was made on sanctioned posts/permanent vacancies after due selection. Although it is asserted that the Centre was part of the establishment of the College and that it was affiliated to the Patna University, we may reiterate that the Patna University has disowned the Centre totally. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Centre was created by the Principal and some Professors of the College, who became the Governing Body of the Centre. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Centre was created by the Principal and some Professors of the College, who became the Governing Body of the Centre. Although all correspondence and orders made by the Centre bears the heading “Computer Science Studies Centre, B.C.E., Patna”, there is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that the Centre was part of the College. It is admitted that the College was a Government College, affiliated to the Patna University. Neither the State Government nor the Patna University had any contribution in the establishment of the Centre. We do not require to refer to the Patna University Act, 1976 or the Regulations/Statutes made thereunder to say that the University functions through its Executive and Academic Councils, the Senate and the Vice Chancellor. In the present case, we do not see the involvement of the Patna University at any stage. Neither the establishment of the Centre; nor the courses; nor the curricula; nor the staffing pattern was approved by the Patna University. On the contrary, we have noticed the communication dated 4th August 1999. It reveals that four months’ certificate course conducted by the Centre was stopped by the Patna University. The proposal was made for a course of B.Sc. in Computer Applications that too does not appear to have materialized. Similarly, the involvement of the State Government is totally absent. 14. Evidently, the Centre was the baby of the Principal and some Professors of the College. The public notice dated 14th July 1995 was issued under the hand of Dr. N.P. Singh, Coordinator. The notice invited the suitable employees for adhoc, part time appointment on daily wages. The said notice did not specify any eligibility criteria either of age, qualification or experience. Further, it is not the case of the writ petitioners that the said notice had been given wide publicity by publishing it in the newspapers. On the contrary, it appears to be a notice circulated within the College. Apparently, the appointments were sought to be made on make shift basis. The appointment of the petitioner no.1 was made on 5th December 1995 as a Class-III contingent staff on daily wage of Rs.45/-. The said order did not specify the post on which the appointment was made. Order was made by the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Centre and not by the College. The appointment of the petitioner no.1 was made on 5th December 1995 as a Class-III contingent staff on daily wage of Rs.45/-. The said order did not specify the post on which the appointment was made. Order was made by the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Centre and not by the College. Some five appointments were similarly made on 14th August 1995. The petitioner no.5 appears to have been appointed in November 1998 to man the terminal examinations, again not by the College. So far as the petitioner no.6 is concerned, no order of appointment has come on record. All that we find is a certificate of experience of working in the examinations as Class-III employee since 1st February 2001. Similar is the story of the other writ petitioners. 15. Thus, the very first assertion that the centre was part of the College and was affiliated to the Patna University does not hold water. The contention that the writ petitioners were appointed by the College on the sanctioned posts or the permanent vacancies is also misleading and is falsified by the documents on record. The recommendation for regularization of the services of the daily wage employees made by the Principal of the College to the Patna University on 15th July 2003 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) is of no consequence. The said proposal/recommendation did not find favour with the Patna University. The Patna University has categorically denied that the appointment of the writ petitioners was ever approved by the said University. 16. There is no gainsaying that the Government of India has, under its Notification dated 28th January 2004, taken-over the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna and that it is now one of the National Institutes of Technology known as “the National Institute of Technology, Patna”. The perusal of the Memorandum of Association of the NIT, Patna reveals that it is registered as a Society governed by the Board of Governors, having its own administrative setup, the Council, the Senate, various committees etc. Under Paragraph 47 of the Memorandum of Association, the NIT, Patna has taken-over every person in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna including the faculty members employed immediately before the date of Memorandum of Association (28th January 2004). Paragraph 49 enlists various Departments/Centers, the NIT, Patna shall have. 17. Under Paragraph 47 of the Memorandum of Association, the NIT, Patna has taken-over every person in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna including the faculty members employed immediately before the date of Memorandum of Association (28th January 2004). Paragraph 49 enlists various Departments/Centers, the NIT, Patna shall have. 17. True, the NIT, Patna did take-over the Centre and the employees of the Centre, however, in view of our finding that the Centre had no legal existence and that the writ petitioners were appointed by the individual member of the Centre as per requirement without specifying the post, requisite qualification, age or experience, we are of the opinion that the NIT, Patna is under no obligation to regularize the service of the writ petitioners as the employees of the NIT, Patna. In any view of the matter, having regard to the nature of their appointment and the manner in which they were appointed by the Centre, even applying the principle laid down in the above referred judgments in the matter of Uma Devi (3) and of M.L. Kesari, the claim for regularization in service made by the writ petitioners has no legs to stand on. 18. We may also point out that although the writ petitioners had an opportunity to compete for regular appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th August 2006, they did not avail of such opportunity. Further, it is not the case of the writ petitioners that they are eligible for appointment to any of the posts in the NIT, Patna. 19. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in proceeding on the presumption that the Computer Science Studies Centre was part of the College establishment and that the appointment of the writ petitioners was made by the College on a sanctioned post after due selection process. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 20th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5350 of 2008 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 5350 of 2008 is dismissed.