Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Mr. Ganesh Kandpal and Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, learned counsel for respondents, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the University and perused the record. 2. All these writ petitions, which are being decided by single order raise a common issue, which is as to whether “Krishi Vigyan Kendra” (hereinafter referred to as “KVK”) which was a project with the University, namely, “Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology” (hereinafter referred to as University), actually merged with the University in 2003. In case, it is a merger, as it is being alleged by the petitioners what would be the consequential affect to their status and condition of service will be the further determination. 3. The University was created by a Statute known as “U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958. The University is under full Administrative as well as Financial Control of the State Government. Earlier it was in the State of Uttar Pradesh now it is in the State of Uttarakhand. The salaries, allowances and perks etc. of the University are being funded by the State exchequer. There are various categories of employees in the University including Teachers, Accountants, Clerks, Class-IV employees etc. Since University specialized in the filed of Agriculture, it also undertakes a number of projects under which employment is given to persons. The project with which we are presently concerned is a project known as “Krishi Vigyan Kendra” (in short ‘KVK’), which is a project established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as “ICAR”). ICAR is a Government of India body, devoted to the field of agricultural research in the country and is totally funded by Government of India. ICAR runs various projects all over the country. In this process it has opened some projects which are known as “KVK” which are under the University for this a Memorandum of Understanding (in short “MOU”) was signed between the ICAR and the University. A MOU between them has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 in the WPSS No. 949 of 2013. 4. In the said MOU, ICAR is referred to as “Council” and University is referred to as “Grantee”. A MOU between them has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 in the WPSS No. 949 of 2013. 4. In the said MOU, ICAR is referred to as “Council” and University is referred to as “Grantee”. The petitioners in WPSS No. 949 of 2013 rely upon Condition No. 8 II, 8XIV and XV, which reads under:- “8. (ii) All staff of KVK shall be borne on the establishment of grantee only. The administrative control over the staff employed under the scheme, therefore, shall vest in the host institution. The placement of staff working in the project after the termination of the project shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee (second party) without having any liability on the Council. (iii) ….. (iv) …… (v) ……………… (xiv) Accounts of KVK will be maintained separately by the grantee institution. Separate audit certificates will be submitted in respect thereof. (xv) The Council will not be liable to bear any expenditure on pension contribution and/or leave salary contribution or any other retirement benefits incurred or committed by the grantee, in lieu of the CPF/GPF etc.” 5. As we shall see in a while from the above provisions as well as the other provisions in the MOU, persons who are appointed in the project at KVK in the University, continued to remain the employee of ICAR, in whichever capacity they were appointed, however, for the day to day Administrative Control on such employees was with the University i.e. the Grantee. 6. Another condition on which the reliance placed by the University is 7 (vii), which reads as under:- “7 (vii) Not to divert/transfer/terminated any scientist, technical and office staff of KVK for any other work other than that of Krishi Vigyan Kendra.” 7. For reasons best known to the University and its Board of Management, a decision was taken by it on 28.04.2003 by which certain posts i.e. Assistant Accountants/Stenographers in KVK were merged with the existing such posts of University Accountants and Stenographers. The merger order dated 28.04.2003 is very important in all these petitions. 8. For reasons best known to the University and its Board of Management, a decision was taken by it on 28.04.2003 by which certain posts i.e. Assistant Accountants/Stenographers in KVK were merged with the existing such posts of University Accountants and Stenographers. The merger order dated 28.04.2003 is very important in all these petitions. 8. A perusal of the said order shows that it is not a general merger of all the posts of Accountants from the project i.e. KVK with the equivalent posts with the University, but it refers to two persons by name i.e. Sri K.C. Paneru, who was working as an Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant in KVK as Accountant and Sri Subhash Chandra, who was working as Stenographer-cum-Computer Operator in KVK as Stenographer. The order further says that these persons shall be kept at the bottom the cadre, in the University. 9. It is this merger which is now being challenged in the year 2011 by the petitioner (in WPSS No. 49 of 2011). The petitioner is a Union of Accounts cadre employee in the University. It has only challenged the merger of respondent No. 4 – Sri K.C. Paneru, who is represented by Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate before this Court. 10. In WPSS No. 949 of 2013, the petitioners were appointed as Accountants in the “KVK” of the University in the year 2006 and now claim that since the cadre of Accountants stood merged with that of Accountant with the University on 28.04.2003, they are actually the employees of the University and from the initial date of the appointment they seek all benefits from the University, including their inter se seniority with the existing staff of the University. 11. In WPSS No. 1274 of 2013, the petitioner – Mukesh Chand is a temporary employee, who is represented by Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate, was appointed as an Accountant in the Project (KVK), but not in the project in University but elsewhere now claims parity with the employees of the University. He has admittedly not been regularized as yet. 12. From the MOU between the KVK and the University, the terms of the appointment of the petitioners (in WPSS Nos. 949 of 2013 and 1274 of 2013), it is clear that they were appointed not for the University but for a project by ICAR which is known as KVK. He has admittedly not been regularized as yet. 12. From the MOU between the KVK and the University, the terms of the appointment of the petitioners (in WPSS Nos. 949 of 2013 and 1274 of 2013), it is clear that they were appointed not for the University but for a project by ICAR which is known as KVK. Therefore, the merger order passed by the Board of Management of the University is patently illegal for the reasons that employees of KVK were never the employees of the University. They continued to be employees of a project which was fully funded and financed by ICAR. Moreover, under the specific condition of the MOU, the work they were supposed to do as employees of ICAR which was for research could not be diverted the work in the University. Finally the decision to absorb these employees i.e. K.C. Paneru and Subhash Chandra by the University is, therefore, unilateral is again patently illegal as no prior permission or sanction of ICAR was taken in the matter. However, the University on a re-thinking now (in WPSS No. 949 of 2013) while filing their counter affidavit has itself expressed apprehensions and doubts over the merger dated 28.04.2003 not only this it has also annexed the letter of ICAR in which ICAR has expressed its disapproval that they are the employees of any other University. Letter of the Zonal Project Director (Zone-4), Sri A.K. Singh addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University reads as under:- “The Vice-Chancellor GBPUAT Pantnagar – 263145 Sub:- Filling up of vacant positions in KVKs Sir, You may be kindly aware that a large number of positions in KVKs of GBPUAT, Pantnagar are vacant since long hampering effective functioning of the KVKs. Recently on 13th & 14th October, 2012, the review of 11 KVKs of the University was done and it was found that a total of 85 positions are vacant out of 176 positions sanctioned for 11 KVKs of the University. KVK scheme is 100% financed by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Dept. of Agricultural Research & Education, Government of India and hence, there should not be any reservation on the part of the University to fill the vacant positions and make the KVKs fully functional and implement the mandate of serving farmers by way of assessment, refinement and demonstration of technologies/products. of Agricultural Research & Education, Government of India and hence, there should not be any reservation on the part of the University to fill the vacant positions and make the KVKs fully functional and implement the mandate of serving farmers by way of assessment, refinement and demonstration of technologies/products. It has also been found that number of KVK staff have been attached by the University for the purposes other than the KVKs which is against the spirit of the MOU signed between the University and the ICAR. Therefore, it is kindly requested that such discrepancies may be addressed and those who are not actually working in KVKs and are attached some where, their salary should not be drawn from the grant of KVKs provided by the ICAR. Yours faithfully, (A.K. Singh) Zonal Project Director Copy to Dr. K.D. Kotate, DDG (AE), ICAR, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan, Pusa, New Delhi for information.” 13. In view thereof, the determination of this Court is as follows:- 14. As far as the merger done by the University dated 28.04.2003 is concerned the same is patently illegal as there was no consent of ICAR in the matter. Moreover, other employees for the University would be effected by such an absorption who were not taken into confidence, or their opinion sought before such an exercise was undertaken. Therefore, such a merger is held to be illegal and to that extent WPSS No. 49 of 2011 succeeds, as it is by an association of University employees, where such a merger has been challenged. 15. Having made the aforesaid determination, yet considering the fact that Sri K.C. Paneru (respondent No. 4 in WPSS No. 49 of 2011) has been continuing as an employee of the University since 2003 and meanwhile, he has now been promoted to the post of Assistant Account Officer as stated by Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, this Court though hold such an absorption/merger to be illegal, but yet a special equity lies in favour of respondent No. 4 – Mr. K.C. Paneru (in WPSS No. 49 of 2011). Therefore, the University is at liberty to pursue the matter with the ICAR and in case they both jointly agree, appropriate order be passed in his case, rectifying the absorption of Sri K.C. Paneru, with retrospective effect. 16. K.C. Paneru (in WPSS No. 49 of 2011). Therefore, the University is at liberty to pursue the matter with the ICAR and in case they both jointly agree, appropriate order be passed in his case, rectifying the absorption of Sri K.C. Paneru, with retrospective effect. 16. The logical conclusion with the above determination would be that since the merger itself is illegal, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners in WPSS No. 949 of 2013 and WPSS No. 1274 of 2013, as is being sought in these petitions, who are after only relying on such merger, claiming that their services are now with the University. In any case, even if that merger held to be correct it was the merger only regarding two persons, mentioned in the merger. It was not a merger where the entire posts of Accountants with that of Accountants in the University. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners (in WPSS No. 949 of 2013 as well as WPSS No. 1274 of 2013) cannot be accepted. Hence the writ petitions fails and are dismissed. 17. In view of the above observations, the WPSS No. 49 of 2011 succeeds and WPSS Nos. 949 of 2013 and 1274 of 2013 are dismissed.