ORDER 1. All these Writ Petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by The Honourable Acting Chief Justice, by order dated 23.1.2013. 2. In W.P.No.15798 of 2007, five petitioners are seeking to set aside the order No. Nil, dated 9.4.2007 passed by the first respondent-Principal, Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai. By the impugned order, the petitioners were informed that the full time Lecturers in the Department of Computer Science and Microbiology would be terminated with effect from 12.4.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007. They were also informed that their names would be recommended to the Management by getting performance report of the respective Heads of Departments for appointment for the year 2007-2008. Challenging the said communication, W.P.No.15798 of 2007 came to be filed. 3. In W.P.No.15798 of 2007, "Notice of Motion" returnable in six weeks, was ordered on 27.4.2007 and interim order of stay was also granted. 4. Aggrieved by the grant of interim order of stay, the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.15798 of 2007 filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.15798 of 2007, seeking to vacate the said order of interim stay, dated 27.4.2007. Though it was filed as early as in 2010, it has not been taken up for disposal. The affidavit filed in support of the said vacate-stay-petition is sworn to by the then Principal-in-charge of Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai. 5. It is stated in the said affidavit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the allegation that the petitioners were working continuously is denied. It is further stated that the petitioners were the Teachers appointed for the self-finance courses conducted in respect of Microbiology and M.Sc. Computer Science and Technology. The said courses were started by the College without any financial aid from the Government. The demand for such courses fluctuated year by year and financial inflow through fee collection does not have stability. B.Sc. Microbiology course was suspended in the year 2000, as there was no demand from the students. The Teachers were appointed only on temporary basis and the salary to the teaching staff was paid on consolidated basis. M.Sc. Computer Science and Technology (5 year in graduate course) was suspended from the academic year 2003-2004, as it has lost its demand from the student community. The Teachers were appointed only on temporary basis and the salary to the teaching staff was paid on consolidated basis. M.Sc. Computer Science and Technology (5 year in graduate course) was suspended from the academic year 2003-2004, as it has lost its demand from the student community. The remaining years of the said course and the financial inability atleast to meet the salary expenses of the Teachers, are being conducted by the Teachers by paying salary from the Management funds. These courses were initially introduced with a motto to develop the educational standard of the poor and benefit the economically weaker sections of the society. The entire fee collection through the conduct of these courses, is being met only for the maintenance of the laboratories and for paying salary to the staff members. Since the appointments were made only on temporary basis, the appointed staff members have been exempted for the requisite pass in National Eligibility Test (NET) and State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) examinations. The working staff in self-finance courses are being paid 12 months' consolidated salary. The appointments were made on the basis of the conditions laid down by the then Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG & OT) and the order itself states that it is valid for full time Lecturers in self-finance courses for 2006-2007 for the period from 14.6.2006 or from the actual date of joining till the last working day of the College for the academic year 2006-2007 only and it was made clear that it will not confer any right for absorption against any regular vacancy of the Day College, which is covered under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules thereunder. It was also made clear that the appointment was purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without issuing any prior notice if the individual's services are found unsatisfactory. Though they were initially appointed on consolidated salary, some of them filed Writ Petition seeking for the same pay parity with that of the regular Teachers working in the aided section of the College. Though they were initially appointed on consolidated salary, some of them filed Writ Petition seeking for the same pay parity with that of the regular Teachers working in the aided section of the College. In fact, the University of Madras, by communication, dated 3.12.2008, informed that the first petitioner was termed unqualified to hold the post of Lecturer in Microbiology and similarly, by communication of the University of Madras, dated 11.5.2010, the fifth petitioner was termed as unqualified/ineligible to hold the post of Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science. The salary payable to them is only for the duration to which they have been appointed. 6. The contention raised by the petitioners was that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and the College Committee has not been consulted before terminating their services and the termination order has been passed in a summary manner. 7. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. R. Ramanlaal, counsel for the petitioners contended that their appointments were made in a regular manner and hence, terminating them is uncalled for. But however, he submitted that in respect of the first petitioner, the courses have been closed and therefore, there is no scope for his continuing in service. 8. As rightly found in the order of appointment, the present Teachers do not come within the purview of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 as the courses were started outside the sanctioned strength given by the Director of Collegiate Education as found under Rule 11(1) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. 9. Under Rule 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976., the number of teachers employed in a College shall not exceed the number of posts fixed by the Director of Collegiate Education from time to time, with reference to the academic requirements and norms of work load prescribed by the respective Universities and overall financial circumstances. Further, the same Rules also provides for communal roster to be followed in the matter of filling up vacancies. 10. Under Rule 11(2)(i), the College Committee of every college has to enter into an agreement with the teachers in Form 7-A. 11. Under Rule 11(3), in the case of regular vacancies, a fully qualified candidate should be appointed only on a regular basis. 12. 10. Under Rule 11(2)(i), the College Committee of every college has to enter into an agreement with the teachers in Form 7-A. 11. Under Rule 11(3), in the case of regular vacancies, a fully qualified candidate should be appointed only on a regular basis. 12. In the present cases, the petitioners were not appointed by the College Committee of the College in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Under Section 15 of the Act, the Teachers must possess the qualification prescribed by the respective Universities and Section 16 prohibits appointment of any person who does not possess the qualification specified under Section 15. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that petitioners 1 and 5 were found to be unqualified by the communication sent by the University. Inasmuch as the appointments were made on adhoc basis and that too against Self Finance Pattern of the college which was started by the Management without reference to the College Committee and that the appointment itself indicates that it was only temporary appointment, the question of petitioners challenging the impugned communication do not arise. If the petitioners are aggrieved that it was a case of termination, then the Act provides for an appeal under Section 20 for which limitation has been prescribed under Section 39 of the Act. 14. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.No.14798 of 2007 stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15. In W.P.Nos.26165 to 2670 of 2012, the petitioners have sought for a direction to regularise their services as Lecturers in various departments with effect from the date of their initial appointment in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in Para 53 of the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) and others reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 , which was followed by the judgment of a Division Bench rendered in W.P.No.16402 of 2004 batch dated 08.12.2006. 16. It is seen from the records that the petitioner in W.P.No.26165 of 2012 was appointed as a Lecturer by the then Administrative General and Official Trustee. 16. It is seen from the records that the petitioner in W.P.No.26165 of 2012 was appointed as a Lecturer by the then Administrative General and Official Trustee. It was stated in the order that the appointment was for the academic year 1998-99 and it was purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without issuing any notice if his services were found unsatisfactory. The petitioner has also produced a re-appointment order for the academic year 2012- 2013 which was given by the then Principal-In-Charge of the College. It was stated as per the permission given by the Trust Board and also in consultation with the Management Representative of the College Council, the appointment was made on consolidated pay. Even in that order, it was stated that the appointment was only temporary and till the last working day of the College for the academic year 2012-13. 17. In W.P.No.26166 of 2012, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Full-time Lecturer in Commerce in the Evening College on consolidated pay. The order dated 21.06.2004 stated the appointment was for 6 hours per week and it will not confer any right for regular appointment in future. He had stated that subsequently, he has been continuing year after year and he has also passed National Eligibility Test for Lectureship. He also produced similar order dated 07.06.2012 re-appointing him for the academic year 20122013, signed by the then Principal- In-Charge of the College. 18. InW.P.No.26167 of 2012, the petitioner claims that she was appointed on 09.12.2003 by the Secretary of the Trust Board in the Evening College of Pachaiyappas as a Lecturer in English on consolidated pay. The order of appointment itself has stated that it was on temporary basis. Subsequently, she has been reappointed on year to year basis and the last such appointment was dated 07.06.2012, as found in the other cases referred to above. The petitioner has also sent a representation to regularise her service as Lecturer from the date of her appointment in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and High Court. 19. In W.P.No.26168 of 2012, the petitioner claims that she was appointed on 10.07.2012 and she is also in possession of National Eligibility Test. The order of appointment stated that she was appointed temporarily as a Guest Lecturer in Tamil on a consolidated salary. 19. In W.P.No.26168 of 2012, the petitioner claims that she was appointed on 10.07.2012 and she is also in possession of National Eligibility Test. The order of appointment stated that she was appointed temporarily as a Guest Lecturer in Tamil on a consolidated salary. She was employed at Pachiayappa's College for Women at Kancheepuram from 10.07.2002. She has also sent a similar letter dated 18.09.2012 seeking for regularisation. 20. InW.P.No.26169 of 2012, the petitioner claims that he was appointed on 05.07.2002 in the Evening College by the Secretary of the Trust Board. In the order, it was stated that the appointment was temporary and on consolidated basis and will not confer any right for absorption against any regular vacancy of the Day College, which is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Subsequently, he was re-appointed in the year 2002. The Experience Certificate produced at Page 9 reads as follows:- He also went for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Government Colleges for which recruitment was done by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner also made a similar representation dated 18.09.2012, seeking for regularisation. 21. InW.P.No.26170 of 2012, the petitioner claims that he was appointed on 06.07.2001 by the Principal of the College as a Guest Lecturer. The workload was fixed as 12 hours per week and was on consolidated basis. It was stated that the appointment will continue till the end of the academic year or till regular appointment was made. He was also given re-appointment order during the year 2009-2010, 2011 and 2012 and the last order dated 07.06.2012 was similar to the order which was stated above. 22. It is in these background, the petitioners made identical prayer as set out above. These writ petitions were admitted on 27.09.2012. Subsequently, a memo was filed seeking for deletion of the first respondent, described as Administrative General and Official Trustee as the Trust is not under his custody. The first respondent was discharged on 08.11.2012. Subsequently, the Special Officer and Administrator of the Trust was made as party 6th respondent. 23. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent in each of the writ petitions. 24. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Trust is running six colleges, which are aided colleges. Subsequently, the Special Officer and Administrator of the Trust was made as party 6th respondent. 23. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent in each of the writ petitions. 24. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Trust is running six colleges, which are aided colleges. All the six colleges are one unit for the purpose of service condition of teachers. The 4th respondent College is also running both Day and Evening Colleges. While the Day Colleges are aided by the State Government, Evening Colleges are run by the management and there is no aid from the Government. In respect of the regular vacancy in the Day College, it has to be filled up by the Trust after taking into account the UGC Guidelines as well as the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976. They will have to follow the communal reservation ordered by the State Government in terms of the provisions of the Act. Any appointment made de hors these provisions will be irregular and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek for regularisation, especially, when they were appointed on temporary basis and renewed for each academic year with a break of two months. In so far as the Day Colleges are concerned, they were aided 100% by the Government and the Trust will have to strictly follow the norms and procedures laid down for appointing Lecturers in the Day Colleges. For the purpose of appointing any candidate, they will have to get sponsorship from Employment Exchange, notification in the press, interview to be conducted by Selection Committee constituted in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education, dated 24.03.1999, candidates must possess requisite qualification as prescribed by UGC followed by the State Government and communal roster will have to be followed. Inasmuch as the petitioners were appointed only for Self-Financing Course and that too for a period of ten months in each academic year and paid on consolidated salary, the question of their services being regularised will not arise. The reference made to Uma Devi's case (Cited supra) is misconceived. Inasmuch as the petitioners were appointed only for Self-Financing Course and that too for a period of ten months in each academic year and paid on consolidated salary, the question of their services being regularised will not arise. The reference made to Uma Devi's case (Cited supra) is misconceived. The mere fact that they have been working for several years either in the evening college or as Guest Lecturers in the regular college will not have any relevance in the matter of filling up the post in the regular day college which has to be done on a statutory basis. The petitioners' appointment is not as per UGC guidelines and Government Orders and they are only temporary. Even the reference made to Para 53 of Uma Devi's case has no relevance as there is no legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioners and hence writ of mandamus will not lie. 25. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that inasmuch as the petitioners have been appointed by regular authority, the question of denying them regularisation will not arise. The contention raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra. Already this Court in W.P.No.24742 of 2012 dated 11.01.2012 in the case of R. Vimala and others v. Directorate of Collegiate Education negatived such contention. In paragraphs 4 to 20, this Court observed as follows:- "4. In this context, as to whether guest lecturers, who were appointed on consolidated pay by the Principal of the College, are entitled to be regularized without any selection process has to be considered first. The colleges run by the second respondent Trust are private colleges within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. The appointment of any teacher has to be necessarily made by the College Committee in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act. The teachers who are to be appointed must be fully qualified in terms of the qualification prescribed under Section 15 of the said Act. Under Rule 11, the number of teachers employed in the college should not exceed the number of posts fixed by the Director from time to time with reference to academic requirement and norms prescribed by the respective university and over all financial considerations. The same rule also provides that reservation as per communal roster will have to be followed. Under Rule 11, the number of teachers employed in the college should not exceed the number of posts fixed by the Director from time to time with reference to academic requirement and norms prescribed by the respective university and over all financial considerations. The same rule also provides that reservation as per communal roster will have to be followed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners went through the selection process as contemplated under the Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. 5. The question as to whether the guest lecturers without going through the selection process can be directly regularized came to be considered by a division bench of this court in M. Saravanakumar and others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 329 , wherein the division bench dealt with the demand of the Guest Lecturers (adhoc lecturers) for regularisation. In paragraphs 28, 32 and 33, the division bench had observed as follows: "28. It may be noted that Guest Lecturers are appointed by the Principals of the Colleges. There is no guarantee that such an appointee is competent. The Principal may have various considerations for making such an appointment, not necessarily merit. Suppose one of such appointees is wholly incompetent and undeserving. Why can he not be replaced by a bright and deserving candidate? After all we have to see the matter from the point of view of the students. An incompetent teacher may adversely affect the future career of the students, while a bright teacher can greatly uplift it. Hence, in our opinion, if a deserving and competent candidate is available then he can certainly be appointed as Guest Lecturer in the place of another Guest Lecturer, who is incompetent and undeserving. ....... 32. It is also not in the interest of the students or the public to appoint Guest Lecturers on a large scale, because teachers who are given such appointments are not likely to take much interest in their work. They will not be able to work with a free mind and will feel all the time that there is a Damocles Sword hanging over their heads. Surely the students in Tamil Nadu deserve good teachers. Good education is of paramount importance for the progress of society in the modern age. 33. They will not be able to work with a free mind and will feel all the time that there is a Damocles Sword hanging over their heads. Surely the students in Tamil Nadu deserve good teachers. Good education is of paramount importance for the progress of society in the modern age. 33. We fail to understand why for the past 5 years no regular recruitment has been made through the Teachers Recruitment Board, and instead this policy of appointing Guest Lecturers has been continued year after year. The teachers are the Gurus of society, and they must be given proper respect, proper status, and a secure job, so that they can function with a free mind and take interest in their work. This policy of making appointments of Guest Lecturers is not conducive to this end, and must now be revoked. " 6. After rejecting similar claims, in paragraph 37, the division bench gave the following directions : "37.We therefore direct that after 31.03.2006 all appointments of lecturers, and other teaching posts, including Principals, in Government Colleges in Tamil Nadu shall be made on a regular basis by selection through the Teachers Recruitment Board or any other legally constituted selection body and not by appointing Guest Lecturers. Such regularly selected teachers will be paid the U.G.C. grade salaries and guaranteed security of tenure. They shall also be given all benefits and perquisites allowable to regularly selected teachers. No Guest Lecturers or ad hoc Lecturers will be appointed or continued after 31.03.2006." 7. Therefore, such a recruitment has to be made by regular selection process. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has clearly laid down that the appointment for all government employments will have to be made in terms of the recruitment rules and any other recruitment will be against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though certain attempts were made to reinterpret the judgment in Uma Devi(3) case, supra, such attempts were frowned upon by the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 . 8. Though certain attempts were made to reinterpret the judgment in Uma Devi(3) case, supra, such attempts were frowned upon by the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 . 8. Even if ad hoc appointees, who were appointed directly, work for ten years, the Court cannot show any misplaced sympathy of protecting such ad hoc employees only because they have worked for long time and the Supreme Court held that in such cases, the decision in Uma Devi (3) case, supra, is binding and has to be applied, vide judgment in State of West Bengal v. Banibrata Ghosh reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 . 9. The Supreme Court also took a similar view in Raghavendra Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 and held that such candidate has no right to be absorbed or made permanent. 10. Similarly, in Harminder Kaur v. Union of India reported in (2009) 13 SCC 90 , the Supreme Court held that the long service rendered by ad hoc employees cannot be a ground for regularisation and regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. Even on the question of age relaxation of such appointees for being considered for future recruitment, the Supreme Court only gave a non binding direction to the respondents/State to consider such issues on their own. 11. The Supreme Court in Pinaki Chatterjee v. Union of India reported in (2009) 5 SCC 193 held that the recruitment cannot be made contrary to the statutory recruitment rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. In case where an employee was appointed twenty times against short term vacancies, such a candidate cannot be regularised and the posts will have to be filled up by direct recruitment, as held in Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448 . 13. Even the clarification given in paragraph [53] of the Uma Devi(3) case, (cited supra) that as a one time measure regularisation can be resorted to, came to be subsequently reinterpreted in Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 . 13. Even the clarification given in paragraph [53] of the Uma Devi(3) case, (cited supra) that as a one time measure regularisation can be resorted to, came to be subsequently reinterpreted in Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 . In that case, the Supreme Court held that in Uma Devi(3) case, supra, the Constitutional Bench has drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily wagers, and those who were appointed irregularly, in the sense that there was non compliance with the procedure in selection process and they did not go through the selection process and in such cases, inspiration cannot be taken from paragraph [53] of the Uma Devi(3) case, supra. 14. In the light of the same, the second relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be countenanced by this court. 15. The colleges run by the second respondent Trust, as noted already, are private colleges within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Any appointment made is subject to the approval by the department as the aid will have to be received for the post for which general permission was sanctioned to the college. While doing so, they will have to fulfill the obligation made by the State Government as well as the University in terms of the qualification. The State Government pursuant to the recommendation by the UGC, accepting the same, had issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1786, Higher Education Department, dated 05.12.1988 and also prescribed procedures for recruitment of teachers. It has been held that persons will have to be qualified in terms of UGC regulations and that the posts will have to be filled up by all India advertisement. The said G.O. has been subsequently amended from time to time. Therefore, there is obligation for the college to comply with the statutory directions issued by the State Government in this regard, without which no aid will be granted for the post filled up. The UGC has also introduced the requirement of passing NET or its equivalent before being recruited for any post. If such qualification is not found with any of the candidate, he is not at all to be appointed, as the institution will be at risk of losing its aid granted by the UGC. 16. The UGC has also introduced the requirement of passing NET or its equivalent before being recruited for any post. If such qualification is not found with any of the candidate, he is not at all to be appointed, as the institution will be at risk of losing its aid granted by the UGC. 16. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh reported in1994 Supp (3) SCC 516 and in paragraph 24, it was observed as follows : '24.It is now appropriate to clarify the direction that the Delhi High Court issued in allowing the writ petition. It held that the notification dated 19-9-1991, by which the said Regulations were published, was valid and mandatory and the Delhi University was obliged under law to comply therewith. The Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for itself and its affiliated and subordinate colleges strictly in accordance with the notification. Put shortly, the Delhi University is mandated to comply with the said Regulations......." 17. In the absence of the petitioners going through regular recruitment process, they cannot seek for regularization merely because they have put in a few years of service. As noted already, they were not recruited by the statutory authority under the Act. The respondent Trust had already called for applications several times and due to reasons of pendency of writ petitions and interim order as well as the change of composition of trust, the appointment could not be made. The petitioners cannot have any right to state that the tenure put by them will be a ground to disregard the statutory recruitment process. The experience gained by them as well as additional qualifications if any earned by them can be compensated by the selection committee by awarding some extra marks as was done by the Teachers Recruitment Board in the matter of recruiting teachers for Government colleges. Such prescription of weightage given for experience and higher qualification was also upheld by this court. 18. Mr. M. Devendran, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent also brought to the notice of this court that subsequent to the advertisement given, dated 19.12.2010, selection process could not be completed as there was vacuum in the Trust Board, i.e., there were only four trustees, out of nine, who are functioning. The quorum for trustees were five. 18. Mr. M. Devendran, learned Standing counsel for the second respondent also brought to the notice of this court that subsequent to the advertisement given, dated 19.12.2010, selection process could not be completed as there was vacuum in the Trust Board, i.e., there were only four trustees, out of nine, who are functioning. The quorum for trustees were five. It was also stated that a teachers organization as well as the Trust took up applications before the Original Side of this Court in Application Nos.4062, 4129, 4226, 4497 and 4498 of 2012, seeking for filling up vacancies in the trust and also to appoint an interim administrator pending filling up the vacancies in the trust. The Scheme Judge, by an order dated 16.10.2012 had passed the following order : "24. In view of the above, this court is constrained to issue the following directions : (i) This court appoints Mr. T.N. Seshan (Retired I.A.S. and also Retired Chief Election Commissioner of India), residing at No.167, St. Marys Road, Chennai-600 018 as the Interim Administrator (I.A.). He shall take charge of the management of the Pachaiyappa's charities with an immediate effect. (ii) The I.A. shall administer the Trust until a new board of trustees take charge after conducting elections for the trust board. (iii) to (vii) omitted (viii) Apart from this task, in view of the grave situation created by non filling up of posts, the I.A. will specially attend to the question of filling up the vacant posts in the colleges run by the Trust besides his other work. (ix) Serious complaints have been made regarding the large number of vacancies in the matter of teachers in various colleges run under the trust number more than 120, for which steps were initiated as early as in August, 2009 calling for applications to fill up the post of lecturers for the six Arts and Science Colleges run by the Trust in Chennai, Kancheepuram and Cuddalore by direct recruitment and at that time, the vacancies were about 111 and presently, the vacancies have been said to be more than 121, the I.A. will immediately start the process of recruitments in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and subsequent notifications issued by the State Government. Since the recruitment of teachers is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976 the process of filling up the vacancies need not wait for the completion of the election which may likely to take some more time. (x) Until the full strength of the trustees is established by due process of law, the interim administrator shall exercise all powers vested with the trustees under the scheme including administration, financial and all personal management and in all activities of the Trust. (xi) The administrator is empowered to hire a personal Secretary to assist him in his work. He is also entitled working space, personal staff and communication facilities. He can also draw assistance from the existing staff of the Trust as he may deem fit as necessary." 19. The learned Standing Counsel also stated that subsequent to the year 2010, number of vacancies have occurred as noted in the order referred to above and that the interim administrator is in the process of implementing the order for recruiting candidates and stated that suitable directions may be issued for completing the process. 20. In the light of the above, the interim administrator is hereby directed to complete the selection process by filling up not only the vacancies which were notified earlier as well as the vacancies which had arisen upto the year 2012. He should strictly adhere to the appointment norms as per the UGC guidelines and various Government Orders governing the field including adhering to the communal roster as required under the statutory rules. This process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the enormity of recruitment process, six months time is given for completing the recruitment process." 26. The other judgment relief on by the petitioners in W.P.No.16402 of 2004, wherein Lecturers were appointed in the Union Territory of Puducherry on stopgap basis got a direction based upon the observation made in Para 53 of the Uma Devi's case. As already noted by this Court, the observation made in Uma Devi's case came to be subsequently considered by the Supreme Court and was frowned upon by the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 . As already noted by this Court, the observation made in Uma Devi's case came to be subsequently considered by the Supreme Court and was frowned upon by the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 . As noted already, it was also subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in the following judgments:- i) State of West Bengal v. Banibrata Ghosh reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 . ii) Raghavendra Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 iii) Harminder Kaur v. Union of India reported in (2009) 13 SCC 90 iv) Pinaki Chatterjee v. Union of India reported in (2009) 5 SCC 193 v) Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448 vi)Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 . 27. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. However, the direction issued by this Court in R.Vimala's case (cited supra) to the interim administrator will also apply to the case of the petitioners and the guidelines indicated therein may be faithfully followed. 28. In view of the above, W.P.Nos.26165 to 26170 of 2012 will stand dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.