Judgment Ashok Bhushan, A.C.J. 1. Above Writ Appeal and two Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. While hearing W.A.No.1945 of 2009, in pursuance of the order passed by us on 22.7.2014, both the above Writ Petitions were also directed to be heard along with the Writ Appeal, so that dispute between the parties may come to an end. Consequently, both the Writ Petitions were also listed and heard along with the Writ Appeal. 2. Brief facts giving rise to W.A.No. 1945 of 2009 need to be noted first. The appellants had filed W.P(C). No.18437 of 2009, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19.8.2009, against which the Writ Appeal has been filed. The first appellant is an educational agency managing the second appellant Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Government of Kerala introduced the Direct Payment System (DPS) in the second appellant College with effect from 1.9.2002. As per the bilateral agreement entered into between the State and the educational agency, the educational agency had made appointments of various teaching and non teaching staff, including Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, third respondent in the Writ Appeal as well as Dr.P.Rema Devi, who has been impleaded as additional 19th respondent in the Writ Appeal. The College is affiliated to the University of Kerala, which is governed under the Kerala University Act, 1974. After affiliation of the College, non-teaching and teaching staff of the College were approved by the University. The appellants have brought on record order dated 16.4.2010 of the Registrar of University of Kerala approving the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. The said order indicates that Dr.P.Rema Devi has been approved as Tutor with effect from 1.9.2002. The appointment of third respondent Smt.Shylaja K.Nair has also been approved by the University as Lecturer with effect from 1.9.2002. The order of the Registrar, University of Kerala has been brought on record. 3. There has been no regular approved Principal in the College. One Dr.Somasekharan Pillai, who was in additional charge of the Principal was working as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. He retired on 30.4.2009. On the recommendation of the Principal and Controlling Officer, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram names of five seniormost teaching staff of the College were recommended. The Government issued order dated 12.6.2009 appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, Lecturer as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College. He retired on 30.4.2009. On the recommendation of the Principal and Controlling Officer, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram names of five seniormost teaching staff of the College were recommended. The Government issued order dated 12.6.2009 appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, Lecturer as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College. The Secretary of the educational agency vide his letter dated 17.1.2009 had put Dr.P.Rema Devi in the additional charge of the post of Principal after suspending Dr.Somasekharan Pillai. The Secretary of the educational agency wrote a letter dated 17.6.2009 to the Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department objecting appointment of Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It was stated in the letter that the order dated 12.6.2009 issued by the Government may be cancelled and Dr.P.Rema Devi may be permitted to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. W.P(C). No.18437 of 2009 has been filed by the appellants challenging Exhibit P5 order of the State Government dated 12.6.2009 as well as consequential order, Exhibit P6 dated 23.6.2009. The following reliefs had been prayed in the Writ Petition: "A. Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order calling for records leading upto Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 and quash the same. B. A declaration to the effect that the respondents have no right or authority to decide who should be the Principal (as well as Drawing and Disbursing Officer) of the 2nd petitioner College, since the Principal of any aided College is the Drawing and Disbursing Officer as per clause 74 and clause 77(7) of the Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non Teaching Staff) First Statute, 1979. C. Such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent as also third respondent opposing the Writ Petition. Second respondent, Principal and Controlling Officer, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram pleaded that appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi having not been approved, she cannot be allowed to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It was further pleaded that no procedure has been complied with by the management towards the alleged appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as the Principal. It was pleaded that in the absence of Principal, seniormost teacher can function as Principal. It was pleaded that Dr.P.Rema Devi, who claims to be appointed as Principal, is only a tutor. It was further pleaded that no procedure has been complied with by the management towards the alleged appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as the Principal. It was pleaded that in the absence of Principal, seniormost teacher can function as Principal. It was pleaded that Dr.P.Rema Devi, who claims to be appointed as Principal, is only a tutor. There being no candidate available in the category of Reader, Dr.Shylaja K.Nair being only Lecturer in the institution was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The third respondent in the counter affidavit has also supported her appointment as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. She claims that she being the only Lecturer was rightly appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Dr.P.Rema Devi being Tutor is neither eligible nor entitled. The alleged appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as Principal has never been approved. W.P(C).No.18437 of 2009 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 19.8.2009 upholding the appointment of Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The learned Single Judge also held that appointment of Principal in charge is not an approved one. The appellants filed W.A.No.1945 of 2009 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench passed an interim order on 7.9.2009, which is to the following effect: "Admit. Learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy took notice for third respondent. Interim order as prayed for is issued. But, this interim order will not in any way affect the contentions of rival claimants that Dr.Remadevi is not qualified for appointment as Principal and therefore, her appointment is not to be approved. This interim order is passed only to enable Dr.Remadevi to draw and disburse the salary of teachers and staff of the College." 5. The Writ Appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench in default on 3.1.2013. After dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the State Government issued another order dated 7.5.2014 reinforcing the Government order dated 12.6.2009 appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The order mentioned that Dr.Shylaja K.Nair being seniormost Lecturer was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the Principal and Controlling Officer was directed not to countersign any bill or other documents signed by Dr.P.Rema Devi in the capacity of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 6. The order mentioned that Dr.Shylaja K.Nair being seniormost Lecturer was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the Principal and Controlling Officer was directed not to countersign any bill or other documents signed by Dr.P.Rema Devi in the capacity of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 6. W.P(C).No.14507 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be Manager of the College challenging the order dated 7.5.2014 of the State Government reinforcing earlier order, Exhibit P3 dated 12.6.2009 and another order dated 4.6.2014 issued by the State Government. The Writ Petition has been filed with the following reliefs: "a. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records leading up to Ext.P3 and P8 and quash the same. b. A declaration to the effect that the Government cannot override the Provisions laid down under S.57 and S.60 of the Kerala University Act and Rule 74 of Chapter 5 of the Kerala University (Conditions of service of teachers and members of non teaching staff) First Statutes, 1979." 7. The management purported to suspend Dr.Sylaja K.Nair by order dated 5.5.2014 on which date a charge memo was also claimed to be given. The suspension order dated 5.5.2014 was served on the State Government on 10.5.2014 as well as on Dr.Shylaja K.Nair. Dr.Shyla K.Nair, after having served suspension order dated 5.5.2014 on 10.5.2014, filed W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 challenging the suspension order. In W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 the following reliefs have been claimed: "i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside Ext.P8 suspension order; ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside Ext.P9 memo of charges; and iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation." 8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing WP(C). No.14507 of 2014, by interim order dated 11.6.2014, directed that the third respondent Dr.Shylaja K.Nair will be entitled to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 9. In W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 filed by Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, the learned Single Judge passed interim order dated 11.6.2014 staying the operation of suspension order dated 5.5.2014. As observed above, both the Writ Petitions, W.P(C).Nos. 14507 and 13986 of 2014 were directed to be listed along with W.A.No.1945 of 2009 and have been heard together. 10. 9. In W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 filed by Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, the learned Single Judge passed interim order dated 11.6.2014 staying the operation of suspension order dated 5.5.2014. As observed above, both the Writ Petitions, W.P(C).Nos. 14507 and 13986 of 2014 were directed to be listed along with W.A.No.1945 of 2009 and have been heard together. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of W.A.No.1945 of 2009 submitted that Dr.P.Rema Devi having been appointed as Principal of the College, the State Government had no jurisdiction to appoint Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is submitted that under Rule 4 of the Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979, it is the Principal of the College, who is entitled to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Thus, the order of the State Government is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the State Government has no authority to appoint Drawing and Disbursing Officer and it is only the Principal, who has to work as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Learned counsel for the third respondent refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellants contended that appointment of third respondent as Drawing and Disbursing Officer was made on the recommendation made by the Controlling Officer of the Government Homoeopathic Medical College, who, by his recommendation, forwarded the name of five senior teachers of the College. It is submitted that the alleged appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as Principal by the management has never been approved or accepted by the University or the Government. It is submitted that there having been no approved Principal, the State Government have every jurisdiction to appoint Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is submitted by learned counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent is the only Lecturer in the institution and Dr.P.Rema Devi being functioning only as Tutor, could not have been appointed in preference of Lecturer. It is submitted that in view of there being no approved Principal in the College, the seniormost teacher of the College is entitled to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 11. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there being Direct Payment System enforced in the College, the State Government has every jurisdiction and authority to appoint Drawing and Disbursing Officer and control the disbursement of salary. 12. 11. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there being Direct Payment System enforced in the College, the State Government has every jurisdiction and authority to appoint Drawing and Disbursing Officer and control the disbursement of salary. 12. Learned counsel appearing for Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, in support of W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014, submitted that after dismissal of W.A.No.1945 of 2009 on 3.1.2013 for default, the Government have issued an order dated 7.5.2014 reinforcing earlier order dated 12.9.2009 appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer and to defeat the said order and to deny the claim of Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, the alleged suspension order dated 5.5.2014 was anti dated subsequent to 7.5.2014. It is submitted that the alleged suspension order dated 5.5.2014 was served on Dr.Shylaja K.Nair only on 10.5.2014 and also a copy of the said order was received by the State Government only on 10.5.2014. The suspension order has been stayed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 11.6.2014, which order is still continuing. 13. Learned counsel for the management, in support of W.P(C).No.14507 of 2014, submitted that the order issued by the State Government dated 7.5.2014 is incorrect. The College has already challenged the earlier Government Order of the State Government dated 12.6.2009 in W.P(C).No.18437 of 2009 and in W.A.No.1945 of 2009. On dismissal of the Writ Appeal on default of the appellants, the Government ought not have passed the order. He further submitted that the order dated 4.6.2014 of the Government of Kerala staying the suspension of Dr.Shylaja K.Nair was uncalled for and it is only the University, which had jurisdiction to interfere with the suspension order. 14. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. The bone of contention between the rival parties is the initial order dated 12.6.2009 issued by the State Government appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The Writ Petition was filed by the educational agency and College challenging the said order, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.8.2009, which judgment has been appealed by the appellants. It is relevant to note the statutory provisions regarding the appointment of teachers in the private Colleges as well as appointment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The College was affiliated with the Kerala University. It is relevant to note the statutory provisions regarding the appointment of teachers in the private Colleges as well as appointment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The College was affiliated with the Kerala University. After enactment of Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010, the University has come under the control under the said Act (Act 4 of 2011). Section 57 of the Kerala University Act provides for appointment of teachers in private colleges, which is to the following effect: "57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges.- (1) Appointments to the posts eligible to receive salary from the Government shall be made only against posts sanctioned by the Government or by such officers as may be authorised by the Government. (1A). Appointments to the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a private college shall be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. (2) Appointments of principals shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment. (3) Where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. (4) Appointments to the posts, other than those referred to in sub-section (1A) and (2), shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, or if none among them is fit for promotion, by direct recruitment. (5) For making appointment under this section by direct recruitment, the post shall be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder,- (a) a person appointed as teacher in a private college in a temporary vacancy on or after the 14th day of March, 1974 and continuing as such, shall be appointed as teacher in any permanent vacancy or any temporary vacancy of longer duration that may arise, after such appointment in the temporary vacancy, in the private college or, as the case may be, any of the private colleges under the management of the educational agency within the University area. (b) a teacher relieved from a private college on or after the 14th day of March, 1974 due to the abolition of a course of study in that private college or the cessation of the period for which he was appointed or for any other reason except disciplinary action against him, shall be given preference in the matter of, future appointments in the private college or, as the case may be, any of the private colleges under the management of the educational agency within the University area. (c) Any dispute arising or pending between the management of a private college and the teacher of that college, in respect of any matter coming under clause, (a) or (b) shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made thereunder. Explanation.- Where the number of claimants under clause (a) or clause (b) is more than the number of vacancies, the order of preference for appointment shall be in accordance with the date of first appointment of the claimants under the educational agency within the University area. (7) The educational agency shall not abolish a course of study in a private college without the prior approval of the University. (8) Every appointment under this section shall be made by a written order of the manager in such form as may be prescribed by the Statutes, communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University. (9) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (10) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal." 15. The Statute has been framed under the Kerala University Act, namely, Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979. Section 2 of the First Statutes contains definition clauses. Section 2(d) defines "Direct Payment Scheme" in the following manner: "Direct Payment Scheme' means the scheme introduced by the Government for the direct payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of private colleges under the Educational agencies which have agreed for government control in the manner of appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff, in the admission of students and which have executed an agreement with the Government for that purpose." 16. Chapter 5 of the First Statutes is a provision in respect of private colleges which have accepted the direct payment scheme. Chapter 5 of the First Statutes is a provision in respect of private colleges which have accepted the direct payment scheme. Rules 73 and 74 of the First Statues, which are relevant, are quoted as below: "73. Applicability of the chapter:- The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to those private colleges which have accepted the direct payment of salaries by the government to the teaching and non-teaching staff of colleges and which have executed agreements with the government for that purpose. 74. Drawing Officer:- The Principal of the College, whose appointment has been duly approved by the competent authority, shall be the drawing officer in respect of all the members of staff, both teaching and non- teaching, of the college." 17. There is no dispute between the parties that the Direct Payment System has been enforced in the College with effect from 1.9.2002 and salary of the teaching and non teaching staff was paid by the State Government. Agreement has already been entered into between the educational agency and the State Government for Direct Payment System. The definition of "Direct Payment System" as contained in Section 2(d) quoted above itself indicates that under the agreement, the educational agency has agreed for government control in the manner of appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff. The Government control having been conceded under the Direct Payment System, it cannot be disputed that the Government have full control over the finances, which are released to the College for payment of salary. In W.P(C). No.18437 of 2009 the management has brought on record Exhibit P4, which is dated 17.1.2009, which reads as under: "Dr.P.Rema Devi, H.O.D of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Department, Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College, is put in additional charge of the post of Principal of the College with immediate effect. Dr.Rema Devi will assume charge of the post of Principal and report the matter forthwith to this Office." 18. Dr.P.Rema Devi was only given additional charge as per the pleading of the College. Although learned counsel for the third respondent has disputed the entitlement of Dr.P.Rema Devi to hold additional charge or to be appointed as Principal, for the purpose of these cases, which have been heard together, we are not entering into the issue of entitlement of Dr.P.Rema Devi to work as Principal of the institution. Although learned counsel for the third respondent has disputed the entitlement of Dr.P.Rema Devi to hold additional charge or to be appointed as Principal, for the purpose of these cases, which have been heard together, we are not entering into the issue of entitlement of Dr.P.Rema Devi to work as Principal of the institution. The pleading, however, in the Writ Petition as well as reply filed by the appellants is that Dr.P.Rema Devi was only given additional charge. It is useful to quote the following statement in paragraph 10 of the reply of the management: "10. …. It is most humbly submitted that in para 4 of the counter affidavit the 2nd respondent states that he has not received any communication till date to suggest that Dr.Rema Devi is appointed as the principal of the college by the management, but in the next line he would say that he was intimated that she was put in additional charge of the principal of the college with immediate effect from 17.1.2009 onwards. The said communication produced as Ext.R1(a) is already produced as Ext.P4 in the Writ petition. So now he cannot claim that he was not having any knowledge of the appointment of a principal in charge in the 2nd petitioner college. It is most humbly submitted that the Management of the 2nd petitioner college has given Dr.Rema Devi the 'additional charge' of the principal of the College." 19. Rule 74 of the First Statutes as quoted above indicates that Principal shall be entitled to work as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, provided he or she is the approved Principal. Section 57(9) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 requires that every appointment made under Section 57 shall be reported to the University for approval. It is not the case of either management or Dr.P.Rema Devi that the University has ever approved the appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as Principal. Rule 74, thus, does not come to help the College to claim that Dr.P.Rema Devi is entitled to work as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 20. It is not the case of either management or Dr.P.Rema Devi that the University has ever approved the appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as Principal. Rule 74, thus, does not come to help the College to claim that Dr.P.Rema Devi is entitled to work as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 20. The State Government in the order dated 12.6.2009, Exhibit P5 has stated that in the absence of an approved Principal-in-charge in the College, the Principal and Controlling Officer, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram forwarded a panel of five seniormost teaching staff of the College and requested the Government to appoint one among them as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College with a view to drawing and disbursing salary and other allowances to the eligible and approved teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. The Government in paragraph 2 have stated that since Dr.Shylaja K.Nair is the seniormost Lecturer as per the panel of five teaching staff furnished, Dr.Shylaja is appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Abdul Majeed v. University of Kerala (2002 KHC 662). The proposition in the said decision is that appointment of Principal in private College is to be made by the Management and the Government cannot override it on the ground that it is a College where direct payment system is in force. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. However, as per Section 57 of the Kerala University Act, any appointment made by the private College requires approval of the University. The claim of management for appointment of Dr.P.Rema Devi as the approved Principal cannot be accepted, since no approval has ever been granted by the University to her appointment. 22. We do not find any infirmity in the order dated 12.6.2009 appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The State having provided finance for payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff, it has full jurisdiction to take all steps, which are necessary for safeguarding the financial discipline and disbursement of salary. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the College. Hence, W.A.No.1945 of 2009 deserves to be dismissed. 23. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the College. Hence, W.A.No.1945 of 2009 deserves to be dismissed. 23. W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 has been filed by Dr.Shylaja K.Nair challenging order dated 5.5.2014 allegedly placing the petitioner under suspension. Copy of the suspension order dated 5.5.2014 was served on Dr.Shylaja K.Nair on 10.5.2014 by special messenger. In paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition there is specific pleading to that effect. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that suspension order was in fact back dated to get over and frustrate the order of the Government dated 7.5.2014, by which the Government reinforced the order appointing Dr.Shylaja K.Nair as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The Government, on the representation of Dr.Shylaja K.Nair, has directed the Principal and Controlling Officer of the Government Homoeopathic Medical College to conduct an enquiry, in the enquiry it has been categorically stated that suspension order dated 5.5.2014 was framed back date to nullify the Government order dated 7.5.2014. Dr.Shylaja K.Nair in her Writ Petition has specifically pleaded that she was present in the College on 6th and 8th May, 2014, but the order was not served on her. The Government has also stated that the order was served on the Government on 10.5.2014 and even to the Principal and Controlling Officer the order was served only on 9.5.2014. The College has filed a detailed counter affidavit running in 12 pages, but no specific reply on the allegations made in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of the Writ Petition has been given. We are satisfied that suspension by management was wholly malafide and just to create obstruction in enforcement of Government order dated 7.5.2014, by which Dr.Shylaja K.Nair was directed to work as Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 24. In view of the aforesaid, we are fully satisfied that the suspension order was malafide and having back dated to defeat the Government order dated 7.5.2014, the same deserves to be set aside. We, thus, set aside Exhibit P8 suspension order. 25. W.P(C).No.14507 of 2014, which has been filed by the Manager of the College questioning the two orders, i.e., Exhibit P3 Government order dated 7.5.2014 and Exhibit P8 order of the State Government dated 4.6.2014 staying the suspension order dated 5.5.2014. We, thus, set aside Exhibit P8 suspension order. 25. W.P(C).No.14507 of 2014, which has been filed by the Manager of the College questioning the two orders, i.e., Exhibit P3 Government order dated 7.5.2014 and Exhibit P8 order of the State Government dated 4.6.2014 staying the suspension order dated 5.5.2014. Order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the State Government is only a consequential order after dismissal of W.A.No.1945 of 2009. We have already held that the prayer of the Manager to set aside Exhibit P3 is unsustainable. With regard to Exhibit P8, we, in W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014, have taken the view that the suspension order deserves to be set aside. The prayer of the petitioner to quash Exhibit P8 has thus become meaningless. In the result, W.A.No.1945 of 2009 is dismissed, W.P(C).No.13986 of 2014 is disposed of setting aside Exhibit P8 suspension order dated 5.5.2014 and W.P(C). No.14507 of 2014 is dismissed. The parties shall bear their costs.