ORDER : NAVIN SINHA, J. These two appeals arise out of a common order dated 10.5.2013 passed in two separate writ applications heard analogous and dismissed. 2. I.A. no. 5917 of 2013 has been filed in LPA no. 1021of 2013 to condone delay of 24 days only. Considering the duration of delay and that the analogous appeal is not barred by limitation, delay is condoned. 3. The Learned Single Judge held that the University Science Instrumentation Centre Scheme [hereinafter called the ‘USIC’], was sanctioned by the University Grants Commission [hereinafter called ‘the UGC’] under the Fifth five-year plan for a specified duration only. If the appointment was on a post created under a scheme for a limited duration, the State government was not obliged to fund the post beyond the duration of the scheme. The appellants could neither claim continuance on the post or payment of salary on the post beyond the period of the scheme. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the USIC scheme was sanctioned by the U.G.C. under the Fifth five-year plan on the condition that the U.G.C. shall fund the scheme only till 31.3.1981. Thereafter the State government must agree to bear the financial burden for the posts created under the scheme. The U.G.C. would approve the scheme only after the State government gave its consent. After consent was granted by the State government, U.G.C. sanctioned the scheme. The State government in its counter affidavit before the Learned Single Judge, took a stand completely contrary to the undertaking given by it to the U.G.C. and contended that it had no financial liability whatsoever of any kind in the matter from 1.4.1981. The Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate and notice the necessary facts and decided the case on a complete misappreciation of the necessary and relevant facts. 5. It was next submitted that the appellants were appointed in 1979 on posts approved under the scheme by the U.G.C. in accordance with the procedures for appointment laid down by the U.G.C. Even after 1.4.1981, the University in its budget sent to the State government for approval, regularly included the payment of salary to the appellants. It was approved by the State government every year. The pay revision recommendations by the University were also approved by the State government. The State government raised frivolous queries with regard to the appointment of the appellants on 26.9.2001. It was approved by the State government every year. The pay revision recommendations by the University were also approved by the State government. The State government raised frivolous queries with regard to the appointment of the appellants on 26.9.2001. The queries were answered by the University on 4.8.2002. The order of termination passed by the University was wrong and contrary to facts. No notice to show cause or opportunity to defend the appointment was given to the appellants by demonstrating that the appointments were not for a limited duration till 31.3.1981 only. The order of termination is non-speaking in nature, rendering it arbitrary on that ground also. 6. Counsel for the State relied upon the counter affidavit filed before the writ court that the posts had been sanctioned by the State government under the U.G.C. scheme only up to 31.3.1981 when the financial support from the U.G.C. came to an end. The appellants were wrongly continued in service thereafter and paid salary. The appointment was for a limited duration and had run its course. The order of the Learned Single Judge required no interference. 7. Counsel for the University submitted that pursuant to an order in CWJC No. 7769 of 2007, filed by another person similarly situated, remitted to the Hon’ble Chancellor for decision, has been rejected by order dated 18.9.2009 of the Hon’ble Chancellor holding that the appointment was for a limited duration and that the State government was under no obligation to release funds for salary after expiry of the scheme on 31.3.1981. 8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and applied our mind to the facts of the case, the questions involved for determination and the manner of consideration done both by the State government and the University. It leaves us satisfied that the facts of the case have not been properly considered and appreciated. Important questions have been left unanswered. Necessary documents have not been brought on record by the parties either before the Learned Single Judge or in appeal. We are therefore unable to reach a positive conclusion either ways and are satisfied that the order under appeal needs to be set aside and the matter remanded to the State government in the Department of Higher Education for fresh consideration and decision. 9. We are therefore unable to reach a positive conclusion either ways and are satisfied that the order under appeal needs to be set aside and the matter remanded to the State government in the Department of Higher Education for fresh consideration and decision. 9. The Learned Single Judge, in our opinion, erred in complete misappreciation of the necessary facts, posed unto himself the wrong question and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. The counter affidavit of the State government completely contrary to its own consent given to the U.G.C, was absolutely relied upon without proper appreciation of the incorrectness of the same. 10. The facts revealed from the records disclose that the visiting team of the U.G.C. sanctioned the USIC Scheme under the Fifth five-year plan in 1975 with two non-teaching posts subject to the condition that it would fund them till 31.3.1981 where after the entire financial liability would be borne by the State government. The Registrar of the University wrote to the Joint Secretary, Education Department on 10.2.1976, that the U.G.C. had sanctioned the posts under the Scheme on the condition that it would fund it till 31.3.1981 and after that the State government must agree to bear the financial burden for the posts. Concurrence of the State government was necessary before the UGC would grant formal approval. On 15.4.1976 the Joint Secretary, Education Department, wrote to the University in reply concurring to the proposal of the U.G.C. and consenting to bear financial burden for the posts sanctioned from 1.4.1981. The State government gave approval for the two posts of laboratory technician and senior technician on 2.5.1977. The U.G.C on 6.4.1978 under the same USIC scheme in the Fifth five-year plan sanctioned 6 more posts fixing the pay scale and qualification for the posts. A copy of the letter was also marked to the Secretary, Department of Education. The enclosure to this letter showing the designation and pay scale of the posts approved by the U.G.C. has neither been brought on record by the appellants, much less the State government or the University. The order of the Hon’ble Chancellor dated 18.9.2009 notices that the U.G.C. sanctioned 6 more posts in the year 1978. This time also, the precondition imposed by the U.G.C. was that the State government shall bear the financial burden after the liability of the U.G.C. seized at on 31.3.1981. The order of the Hon’ble Chancellor dated 18.9.2009 notices that the U.G.C. sanctioned 6 more posts in the year 1978. This time also, the precondition imposed by the U.G.C. was that the State government shall bear the financial burden after the liability of the U.G.C. seized at on 31.3.1981. Yet it was held that the posts were sanctioned for a limited duration only. 11. It is apparent that the USIC Scheme was not temporary in nature. Only funding of the posts under the scheme by the U.G.C. was to be done till 31.3.1981. After that date, the State government had already undertaken to bear the financial burden for the posts under the scheme and subject to which condition the U.G.C. had granted approval to the Scheme in the University. The counter affidavit of the State government that the USIC Scheme was limited in its duration till 31.3.1981 is therefore perverse and a complete misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts by the State Government renegadeing from its earlier stand as communicated to the UGC. It displays complete non-application of mind to issues involved by the State government. In our opinion, once the U.G.C. sanctioned the Scheme in 1975, accepted by the State government, and only extended the number of posts under the scheme in 1978, the State government having already given its formal concurrence to the scheme on 15.4.1976, there was no occasion or need for the State government to issue formal acceptance in 1978 again. It was not open for the State government to accept the USIC scheme recommended by the U.G.C. in a truncated manner to its own satisfaction. The approval by the U.G.C. for posts in 1975 and 1978 under the same scheme has to be understood as composite in nature. A copy of the letter dated 6.4.1978 was marked to the Secretary, Department of Education. There is no denial on behalf of the State government that it had conveyed its un-acceptance of the same to the UGC. We are unable to appreciate the letter of the State government dated 26.9.2001 written to the University, which in our opinion is in the nature of a roving inquiry, when it talks of the UGC sanctioning only the posts of Laboratory Incharge and Senior Technician only, approved by the State government on 15.4.1976/2.5.1977. We are unable to appreciate the letter of the State government dated 26.9.2001 written to the University, which in our opinion is in the nature of a roving inquiry, when it talks of the UGC sanctioning only the posts of Laboratory Incharge and Senior Technician only, approved by the State government on 15.4.1976/2.5.1977. Thereafter, it seeks to query when the State government sanctioned the remaining posts without denial of the letter dated 6.4.1978 of the U G C. 13. Unfortunately, when the State government wrote to the University making a frivolous query, the University did no better by a casual reply on 4.8.2002 leaving much to be desired as it is neither here nor there on crucial facts. 14. There is no denial by the State government that the University acted in accordance with the UGC guidelines in making the appointment of the appellants. The eligibility of the appellants is not in dispute. 15. The order of termination has civil consequences for the appellants. It was therefore required to be preceded by a show cause notice with an opportunity of defense when the appellants may have demonstrated that the appointment was not for a specified duration and neither was the scheme limited in point of time. Moreover, the order of termination by the University is also non-speaking in nature. The explanation by the Counsel for the University that it was based on the letter of the State government dated 26.9.2001 does not appeal to us as the very factual premise for the same has been held to be wrong by us. The appellants have worked from 1979/1987 till they were unceremoniously removed in 2002 on completely erroneous grounds. We are satisfied that the authorities have not applied their mind properly to the facts and issues. 16. We are therefore unable to uphold the order under appeal dated 10.5.2013. It is set aside. The orders of termination of the appellants passed by the University on different dates in 2002 are also set aside. 17. The matter is remanded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the discussions contained in the present order. The appellants shall be given a personal hearing. The Registrar of the University shall also participate in the hearing before the Principal Secretary, and produce the necessary records. 17. The matter is remanded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the discussions contained in the present order. The appellants shall be given a personal hearing. The Registrar of the University shall also participate in the hearing before the Principal Secretary, and produce the necessary records. The Principal Secretary shall take fresh decision and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. 18. The appeals are allowed.