Judgment 1. The cause shown for condonation of delay in filing D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.668/2014 & 667/2014 is good and sufficient. The applications for condonation of delay are allowed. 2. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.499/2014, 613/2014 & 615/2014 and learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (for short, 'the University') in D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.641/2014, 667/2014 & 668/2014. 3. All these intra-court appeals arise out of a judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.1.2014, by which in purported compliance of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.10.1994, he has cancelled the appointments of all the 20 candidates made by the University on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 12.12.1995, and has further directed that the resultant vacancies will be advertised within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 4. The University is aggrieved with the judgment on the ground that earlier the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, were dismissed by learned Single Judge. The appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench. The Apex Court while deciding Special Leave Petition against the orders, on 25.10.1994, passed an order to the following effect:- “In the impugned judgment, directed the reinstatement of the respondents with full back wages. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case, to reinstate the respondent with full back wages. We set aside the judgment of the learned Single Bench and also of the division Bench of the High Court and grant the following relief to the respondents:- (i) A lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as ex-gratia compensation be paid to each of the 20 respondents within three months from today: (ii) The respondents shall be permitted to apply for two further selections to be held for the post of LDC or for any equivalent post. They shall not be rejected on the ground of age. Even if they are over-age, they shall be given two successive chances to participate in the selection.” Since the respondents have already worked as LDC with the appellant-University, the Selection Committee shall keep into consideration the fact that they have some experience of working in the University. They shall not be rejected on the ground of age. Even if they are over-age, they shall be given two successive chances to participate in the selection.” Since the respondents have already worked as LDC with the appellant-University, the Selection Committee shall keep into consideration the fact that they have some experience of working in the University. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.” Learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the appointments to 20 persons given on 12.12.1995 were fresh appointments, without making any selection. The new candidates were engaged in the year 1990, and were regularized in the year 1997, and that, apart from promotion on ad hoc basis to carry out work of LDC or equivalent post, efforts were made to deny opportunity to the petitioners to appear in two successive selections. The defence of the University that no fresh selections were made, and that, no appointment orders were passed, for giving regular pay scales to the persons, who were already working, by way of fresh selections, was not accepted. In the Special Appeals filed by the University, the orders of appointments of 20 persons, and the appointment of those persons, who were already working in the University, and were given regular pay scales, have been explained as follows:- “5. That various orders challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition No.3485/2002 were explained by the Appellate in reply to the writ petition. For the perusal of the Hon'ble Court all the orders are again explained hereinbelow:- (i) By order dated 15.4.1995: Ex Army personnel who were already working were given regular pay scale and were appointed in regular pay scale and were appointed in regular pay in view of the fact that these persons agreed to withdraw writ petitions submitted by them before the Hon'ble High Court. (ii) Order dated 12.12.1995 : by which 20 persons who were selected and empanelled for appointment on the post of LDCs were given appointment on probation. These 20 persons were selected in pursuance of the advertisement which was issued on 31.12.1993 and the tests thereof were conducted in the month of September 1994. For sixty vacancies a panel of 90 candidates was prepared. 40 candidates were given appointments out of the above panel on 10.10.1994 but 20 posts were kept vacant. These 20 persons were selected in pursuance of the advertisement which was issued on 31.12.1993 and the tests thereof were conducted in the month of September 1994. For sixty vacancies a panel of 90 candidates was prepared. 40 candidates were given appointments out of the above panel on 10.10.1994 but 20 posts were kept vacant. However, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.10.1994, the remaining 20 persons were also given appointment by the above order dated 12.12.1995. (iii) Order dated 15.12.1995 : By the above order 6 persons already working in the University were given regular pay scales with a rider that their annual increments would be payable only when they become eligible for regular appointments after passing the test as per prescribed procedure. The above decision to grant regular pay scale was taken by the Board of Management (For short referred as BOM) of MDS University in its meeting dated 6.12.1995 which is decision no.26. These persons were already working on fixed pay and the decision was in keeping with various judgments and pronouncements on the issue. The above decision was taken by the Board of members to apply principle of “Equal wages for Equal work”. The principle was applied as at that time various judgment and pronouncements were delivered on the issue. (iv) Order dated 29.11.1997: By the above order four persons who were already working in the University were appointed in pursuance of the decision no.26 dated 6.12.1995 of the BOM and after qualifying the special eligibility test on 2 years probation. These four persons are covered under the order dated 15.12.1995 as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (v) Order dated 10.7.1998 : The persons already working on fixed pay were given the minimum of the regular pay scale. These are the persons who were given appointment vide order dated 15.12.1995. Factually, their pay scale was fixed by the above order. (vi) Order dated 20.2.1999: By the above order two persons who were given regular pay scale by order dated 15.12.1995 had qualified typing test and, therefore, their pay fixation was made and they were appointed. As it has been submitted earlier these 6 persons are the persons who are already working and to whom regular pay scale was given and after screening and typing test the orders were passed. As it has been submitted earlier these 6 persons are the persons who are already working and to whom regular pay scale was given and after screening and typing test the orders were passed. (vii) Order dated 15.3.1999 : By this order the services of two retired persons were extended for a brief period of four months only i.e.28.2.1999 to 30.6.1999. Services of these persons were utilized to meet out the urgent requirement.” 5. It is submitted that selections for recruitment on the posts of LDC were advertised on 21.1.1998, but were not concluded. The petitioner had applied for appointment for selections, but since, 67 posts were abolished, the selections were not held. 6. The petitioners had, in the meantime, approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in I.A. Nos.45-53, 54-56 & 57 in C.A. Nos.7795, 7801, 7804, 7806, 7810, 7814, 7816, 7820, 7821, 7800, 7807, 7808 & 7796 of 1994. The applications were disposed of by Hon'ble Apex Court, as withdrawn, with the following order:- “As the grievances in these I.As are already made subject-matter of a pending writ petition in the High Court where all these contentions can be considered for being thrashed out on merits. At the request of learned senior counsel for the applicants these I.As are permitted to be withdrawn. The I.As are, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.” 7. We have gone through the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court and find that while setting aside the judgment of learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench, by which the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with full back wages, directions were issued for a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as ex-gratia compensation to be paid to each of the 20 respondents within three months, with further directions that the respondents will be permitted to apply for future selections to be held for the post of LDC or for any equivalent post, and they shall not be rejected on the ground of age, and even if they are over-age, they shall be given two successive chances to participate in the selection. The Supreme Court further directed that the Selection Committee shall keep into consideration the fact that they have some experience of working in the University. 8. It is admitted that the fresh selections were not held after 25.10.1994, and that, the selections advertised on 21.1.1998, were not concluded, as 67 posts were abolished. 9. The Supreme Court further directed that the Selection Committee shall keep into consideration the fact that they have some experience of working in the University. 8. It is admitted that the fresh selections were not held after 25.10.1994, and that, the selections advertised on 21.1.1998, were not concluded, as 67 posts were abolished. 9. So far as appointment of 20 persons, who were appointed by order dated 12.12.1995 is concerned, the explanation given by the University, that they were the selectees of the appointment process, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.12.1993, and their appointments were withheld, on account of the pendency of the litigation initiated by the respondents, clearly shows that they were not appointed in pursuance to any selections held after the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.10.1994. They were given appointment in pursuance to the earlier selections, which do not, in any way, violate the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances, that the explanation given by the University in paragraph 5, that the appointments of 20 persons were made in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.12.1993 and the orders, by which regular pay scale was given to the Ex-Army personnel, vide order dated 15.4.1995; the grant of regular pay scales to six persons, who were already working, vide order dated 15.12.1995; the grant of regular pay scale to the four persons, who were already working, vide order dated 29.11.1997; the grant of minimum of the regular pay scale to the persons, who were already working, vide order dated 10.7.1998; the grant of regular pay scale to the persons, who had been appointed and are working, and had also qualified the type test, vide order dated 20.2.1999; and the extension of two retired persons, for a brief period of four months, to meet the urgent requirement, by order dated 15.3.1999, cannot be said to be in violation of the order of the Supreme Court dated 25.10.1994. The Supreme Court had not given any such directions, which may have prohibited the regularization, or grant of regular pay scales to the persons, who were working in the University for long periods. The Supreme Court had not given any such directions, which may have prohibited the regularization, or grant of regular pay scales to the persons, who were working in the University for long periods. The directions of learned Single Judge therefore, to recall the appointments of all such persons, except those 20 candidates, who were earlier recruited, but given appointments, after the judgment of the Supreme Court, cannot be sustained, and are thus, set aside. Their services shall not be disturbed, in pursuance to the orders passed by learned Single Judge. 11. The D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.641/2014, 667/2014 & 668/2014, filed by the University, is consequently allowed and the D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.499/2014, 613/2014 & 615/2014, filed by the petitioners, are dismissed. The interim applications are disposed of. 12. If there are any vacant posts, the University may proceed to hold selections, in which they will give chance to those, who were appellants in the Apex Court. They will be allowed to participate in the selections, and will be given weightage of age and experience, as directed by the Court. 13. A copy of this judgment will be placed in all the connected files.