Judgment :- R.K. Agrawal, A.C.J., & N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order made in W.P.No.3771 of 2011 dated 7.6.2011, which was filed by the first respondent herein with a prayer to quash the order of the third appellant herein dated 5.3.3011 and direct the the appellants herein to relieve her from the post of Senior Lecturer (Physics) from the Karaikal Polytechnic College, Karaikal, in accordance with Rule 63 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. 2. The case of the first respondent herein/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was as follows: (a) The first respondent was appointed in the Polytechnic College, established and administered by the Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical Education (hereinafter called as "PIPMATE") and she joined as Lecturer in Physics on 24.11.1994. She worked as Lecturer (Senior Scale) in Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College at Mahe. (b) On 28.6.2006, she requested the first appellant to forward her application seeking permission to join in Smt.Indira Gandhi College, Tiruchirapalli, to pursue Ph.D. Programme in "Computer Networks" and applied for study leave of 24 months from 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008. According to the first respondent, as per AICTE norms, possession of Master degree or Ph.D. in teaching is a pre-requisite qualification for getting Selection Grade Pay under the career advancement scheme and the appellants also permit 15% of sanctioned faculty to go on study leave. (c) On 3.7.2002 guidelines were issued by PIPMATE for the teachers availing study leave, wherein it is stated that the teachers availing study leave, must execute a bond to serve in the Institute for a period of five years instead of three years and any teacher, who wants to resign the job before the bond period, can do so only after collecting the amounts from the teachers, which includes the salary paid for the entire period of study leave and also the pay and allowances for the un-expired portion of the bond period. (d) The first respondent/writ petitioner executed an Undertaking and was granted study leave to pursue Ph.D programme from 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008. She executed the bond undertaking to refund the entire expenditure incurred by the Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College at Mahe, and that she will add value to the academic upliftment of PIPMATE. (d) The first respondent/writ petitioner executed an Undertaking and was granted study leave to pursue Ph.D programme from 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008. She executed the bond undertaking to refund the entire expenditure incurred by the Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College at Mahe, and that she will add value to the academic upliftment of PIPMATE. (e) The first respondent underwent Ph.D programme and during the study leave period, she was promoted to the post of senior Lecturer on regular basis and was posted to work in the Karaikal Polytechnic College. After completion of Ph.D programme, she rejoined duty as Lecturer on 1.10.2008 and as per the bond condition, she has to work till 30.9.2013. (f) The first respondent, before expiry of the said bond period, applied to the post of Professor and Associate Professor in the University of Pondicherry, stating that she will refund the entire expenditure incurred by her as per the bond condition. The application was forwarded by the Principal of the Polytechnic College, Karaikal and she was called for an interview by Pondicherry University, pursuant to which she attended the interview on 27.11.2010. The PIPMATE also issued NOC on 23.11.2010, and she was selected for the post of Reader (Associate Professor in Computer Science) and was directed to join in 30 days along with relieving order. (g) Pursuant to her selection as Reader in the Pondicherry University, the first respondent sent her resignation letter. The first appellant informed the Principal of the Polytechnic College to collect the amounts as per the bond condition from the first respondent before accepting her resignation, pursuant to which the first respondent was directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,26,626/-towards leave salary (study leave salary) and to pay a sum of Rs.24,28,080/- towards the pay and allowances for the un-expired portion of the bond period from 1.2.2011 to 30.9.2013, i.e, a total of Rs.27,54,706/-to PIPMATE. The contention of the first respondent was that she was entitled to a sum of Rs.7,22,738/- towards VI Pay Commission arrears from 8.10.2008 to 31.8.2010 and the said amount is payable by PIPMATE. (h) First respondent/writ Petitioner sent a letter/representation on 3.1.2011 seeking to waive the condition of bond citing an instance of one R.Lakshmi, Senior Grade Lecturer. No order having been passed, first respondent filed the writ petition. Based on the conditional order dated 8.3.2011 passed by this Court, she joined in the University service. (h) First respondent/writ Petitioner sent a letter/representation on 3.1.2011 seeking to waive the condition of bond citing an instance of one R.Lakshmi, Senior Grade Lecturer. No order having been passed, first respondent filed the writ petition. Based on the conditional order dated 8.3.2011 passed by this Court, she joined in the University service. (i) It is the contention of the first respondent that Rule 63 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, is applicable to her, under which, if a Government Servant after return to duty from study leave, is deputed to serve in any statutory or autonomous Body or Institution under the control of the Government and is subsequently permitted to resign from service with a view to his/her permanent absorption, waiver of bond can be ordered. (j) The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the first respondent and held that the first respondent having joined in the Pondicherry University service, the demand made by the appellants cannot be sustained. (k) The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the appellants contending that Rule 63 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, is not applicable to the first respondent as the service conditions of the employees of the PIPMATE are governed under the bye-laws/Rules and Regulations framed by the PIPMATE, under which three years bond period originally fixed was enhanced to five years and the first respondent having applied by giving an undertaking affidavit and executed bond, is not entitled to file writ petition to waive the bond condition. It is also contended by the appellants that study leave was granted to the first respondent to acquire higher qualification with pay and allowance with a fond hope that she will work for five years for the betterment of the Polytechnic College and the said bond condition having been breached, the appellants have rightly called upon the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.27,54,706/- being the salary received during the study leave period and the salary for the un-expired period of service and there is no illegality in the recovery order passed against the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the bye-laws of PIPMATE will bind the service conditions of the employees of PIPMATE. PIPMATE is an autonomous body, governed under the rules and regulations. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the bye-laws of PIPMATE will bind the service conditions of the employees of PIPMATE. PIPMATE is an autonomous body, governed under the rules and regulations. As per Rule 7(2) of the Rules and Regulations, the Governing Body is empowered to make subsidiary rules as and when deemed necessary for the management and running of the polytechnic and other institutions, and Rule 7(22) empowers the Governing Body to frame such rules and regulations and bye-laws for the conduct of the business of the society for the achievement of the objects of the association. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the Rules, the Governing Body is entitled to make bye-laws from time to time. Rule 15 empowers amendment of Memorandum of Association of Rules and Regulations, subject to the approval of the Government and also with the approval of 2/3rd of the members of the Governing Body, and as such, the service conditions of the employees of PIPMATE is governed under the Rules and Regulations and allowing the writ petition relying on the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 63, is unsustainable. 4. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has resigned from the service of PIPMATE for joining in the Pondicherry University, and not for joining in any private institution or to join in foreign service. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge requires no interference. The learned counsel further argued that the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 alone will apply to the staff of PIPMATE. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the first respondent, second respondent and perused the relevant Rules and Regulations and documents relied on by the parties. 6. PIPMATE is a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, bearing registration No.209 of 1988. The first respondent was employed in PIPMATE as Lecturer in Physics to take classes in Polytechnic College and the PIPMATE is having separate rules and regulations for administration and service conditions of its employees. The first respondent applied for study leave by application dated 28.6.2006 for a period of 24 months from 1.10.2006 for the purpose of undergoing Ph.D. programme in the field of "Computer Networks". The first respondent applied for study leave by application dated 28.6.2006 for a period of 24 months from 1.10.2006 for the purpose of undergoing Ph.D. programme in the field of "Computer Networks". The first respondent while applying for study leave, gave an undertaking and also executed necessary bonds as per the Rules and Regulations framed by PIPMATE. As per the service rules applicable to the first respondent, the persons who are going on study leave for pursuing higher study, will have to execute a bond to serve under PIPMATE for a period of five years, which was previously fixed as three years, and if an incumbent wants to resign the job before expiry of five years of bond period, the same can be permitted only after collecting the amount paid to him/her during the entire period of his/her study leave and the pay and allowance for the un-expired portion of the bond period. The said decision was taken by the Governing Body in its 21st meeting held on 3rd July, 2002. The said decision is not challenged by the first respondent. 7. The first respondent, knowing fully well the existence of the said Rule from 3.7.2002, applied for study leave by giving undertaking in a ten rupees stamp paper dated 8.6.2006. The undertaking given by the first respondent reads as follows: "UNDERTAKING I, S.Bhuvaneswari, Lecturer in Physics, Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College, East Pallour, Mahe-670 672 do hereby undertake that I would serve the Polytechnic under the control of PIPMATE, Pondicherry for a period of five years after the completion of my Ph.D., course availing study leave. In case I fail to serve the Polytechnic under the control of PIPMATE, Pondicherry as aforesaid, I undertake to refund the entire expenditure incurred by Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College, East Pallour, Mahe, 670 672 on my behalf. Sd/-xxxxxxxx S.BHUVANESWARI Lecturer in Physics, Indira Gandhi Polytechnic College, East Pallour, Mahe – 670 672" Accepting the said undertaking the first respondent was granted study leave. Thereafter she had executed a bond with two sureties viz., (1) C.Coumaran, S/o.A.Carounagaran, Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Karaikal Polytechnic College, Varichikudy, Karaikal; (2) N.Meenakshi Sundaram, S/o.C.Narayanasamy, Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Karaikal Polytechnic College, Varichikudy, Karaikal. Execution of the bond was witnessed by two witnesses and the sureties' signatures were also witnessed by the said two witnesses. A copy of the said bond forms part of the record in this case. 8. Execution of the bond was witnessed by two witnesses and the sureties' signatures were also witnessed by the said two witnesses. A copy of the said bond forms part of the record in this case. 8. From the above referred undertaking as well as the bond executed by the first respondent at the time of availing the study leave, it is evident that the first respondent agreed to serve for five years after completion of her Ph.D. Programme. It is an admitted case that the first respondent, before completion of service of five years after completing Ph.D. Programme, as agreed, applied for selection to the post of Reader in Pondicherry University and she was also selected. Therefore, the appellants demanded salary paid during study leave and the pay and allowances for the unexpired bond period. There is no illegality in the said order as the first respondent breached the undertaking as well as the bond executed by her. 9. The Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE is the rule applicable to the first respondent and all employees of PIPMATE, which is the special Rules and Regulations framed by the PIPMATE. The learned single Judge has given a finding that Rule 63(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 will have to be applied, under which only three years service after completing Ph.D is required and the first respondent served for two years and three months, which is the substantial portion of the bond period. 10. In the light of the above referred Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE, Rule 63(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 cannot be made applicable as it is a well settled proposition of law that special rules will prevail over the general rule. Admittedly the first respondent has not challenged the rule imposing five years bond period after completion of Ph.D programme, which was decided by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 3.7.2002 and she applied for study leave only on 28.6.2006, i.e., four years after the said rule was changed. The first respondent was aware of the said rule, and having given an undertaking and executed a bond to serve for five years after completion of Ph.D. Programme, she is estopped from contending that the said rule/regulation cannot be applied and only the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 will apply. The first respondent was aware of the said rule, and having given an undertaking and executed a bond to serve for five years after completion of Ph.D. Programme, she is estopped from contending that the said rule/regulation cannot be applied and only the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 will apply. The conduct of the first respondent in applying for waiver of bond period clearly establishes the applicability of the Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE. 11. On the basis of the above finding, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned single Judge in deciding the writ petition by applying Rule 63(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is not sustainable as the Rule applicable to the first respondent is the Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE. 12. The power to amend the Rules altering the service conditions is vested with the rule making authority is no longer res integra. (a) In the decision reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 (P.U.Joshi v. Accountant General) the said issue was considered in paragraph 10, which reads thus, "10. ............. it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/ substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." (b) In the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 529 : (1966) 1 SCR 543 (Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta) the Supreme Court held that 'a statute must be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not'. The said decision is followed in the decision reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 (LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar), wherein in para 11 it is held thus, "11. .......... The courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should never be done. ........." (c) The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 8 SCC 569 (Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G.Alex) in para 11 held thus, "11. ......... Grant of such a relief in the teeth of express provisions of the statute to the contrary is not permissible. On equitable considerations court cannot ignore or overlook the provisions of the statute. Equity must yield to law." 13. The first respondent's waiver request submitted based on the waiver given to another person cannot be countenanced as it is well settled proposition of law that a wrong decision does not give a right, to enforce the wrong order. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 (State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann) in paragraph 3 reiterated the said proposition. 14. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 (State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann) in paragraph 3 reiterated the said proposition. 14. The Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE contemplates execution of bond to serve for five years after completing Ph.D. Programme, based on which the first respondent executed the bond as stated supra. Hence the question of unequal bargaining power has no application to the facts of this case. 15. The issue relating to enforceability of bond condition executed for undergoing higher studies, if breached, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 2440 : (1973) 2 SCC 303 (M.Sham Singh v. State of Mysore). The Supreme Court repelled the contention that the appellant was allowed to stay in USA for one year for practical training and therefore the Government shall waive its right to enforce the bond. 16. In the light of the above decisions and the Rules and Regulations of PIPMATE, we are unable to see any ground to interfere in the decision taken by the appellants and the findings given by the learned single Judge is set aside. However, as held by the learned Judge, the appellants must adjust the arrears of salary payable to the first respondent, while claiming the amounts payable by the first respondent as per the bond condition. The writ appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.