JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of writ petition, (WPSB No. 193 of 2014) the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others:- (i) Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned corrigendum dated 14.8.2012 (Annexure No. 9) and orders dated 14.08.2013, 23.08.2013, 20.02.2014 and 08.08.2013 (Annexure No. 12) in league with the Government Order dated 13.7.2012 and 16.08.2012 (Annexures No. 1 and 2) declaring the same as illegal, unreasonable and ultra vires to the Constitution of India along with its effect and operation, also after calling the entire records from the respondents. Further, to declare the condition imposed by the respondent no. 5 directing to the petitioners to submit PBAS form for the extension of their tenure as arbitrary and mala-fide keeping in view the aforesaid fact as highlighted in the body of the petition and to quash the impugned communication dated 22.7.2014 (as Annexure no. 22), 30.07.2014 (as Annexure no. 25) and 01.07.2014 (as Annexure no. 20) along with its effect and operation. (ii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary of the petitioners including increments and other benefits in terms of their initial appointment letters and also treat the petitioners as substantively and regularly appointed faculties for all practical purposes had it been (read ‘as if’) these impugned orders were never in existence. (iii) Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure No. 19) in which it had been directed to petitioners to fill up PBAS form till 27.06.2014 so that decision could be taken regarding the extension of services of petitioners on basis of such appraisal report. (iv) Issue writ rule or direction appropriate in nature to award compensation or damages to the petitioners to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs to each of the petitioners on account of the tortious act of the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 and also directed to recover the same from the erring officers who are instrumental for such acts. (v) Issue writ, rule, or direction appropriate in nature commanding to the respondent no. 1 to take all appropriate steps and effective measures to restrain the issuance of any Govt. letter or Govt. 2, 3 and 4 and also directed to recover the same from the erring officers who are instrumental for such acts. (v) Issue writ, rule, or direction appropriate in nature commanding to the respondent no. 1 to take all appropriate steps and effective measures to restrain the issuance of any Govt. letter or Govt. Order which may be an impediment in respect of smooth functioning of a technical institute specifically running on self finance mode and also to take appropriate steps against such Govt. officers who were instrumental in the issuance of the such type of orders. 2. In connected writ petition, (WPSB No. 294 of 2014) petitioners seek following reliefs:- (i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2014 and its effect and operation also after calling the entire records from the respondents. (ii) Issue writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to treat the petitioners in service had it been the impugned order was never in existence along with all consequential benefits. (iii) Issue order or directions to initiate appropriate enquiry in respect of furnishing the information to the AICTE by the respondent no. 3 based on craftily engineered facts and documents and to cause harm to the petitioners as well as public at large and to pass all appropriate orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. (iv) Issue order or direction appropriate in nature to award compensation to the petitioners in the tune of Rs. One crore to each of the petitioners and same may be recovered from the respondent no. 3 on account of his malicious and mala-fide and tortious act to harass the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun had been established under the enactment known as Uttarakhand Technical University Act (No. 5 of 2005) by the State Government and is a State University. As per Section 2(m) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act (No. 5 of 2005), the definition of ‘constituent college’ means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and declared as such by the Regulations. As per Section 2(m) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act (No. 5 of 2005), the definition of ‘constituent college’ means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and declared as such by the Regulations. T.H.D.C. Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology came into existence pursuant to the mutual decision taken by the THDC India Limited and Uttarakhand Technical University and as a result thereof, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the THDC India Limited and Uttarakhand Technical University. 4. Clause (e) of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) specifically provides that the Institute would run as a constituent college by Uttarakhand Technical University, in self financing mode with courses as per UGC/AICTE norms. It was further provided that Uttarakhand Technical University has affirmed to take constituent institute without any liability on State Government. Under intent clause of MOU, it was provided that institute being established, will satisfy AICTE norms and standards of build up area of administration and that the teacher-student ratio will also be as per AICTE standard, which presently is as per norms, 1:15. It is specifically provided under the MOU the post of teaching and non-academic/supporting staff as per AICTE norms will be ‘considered as created’ and the board of governors will decide the recruitment as and when required and salary will be decided as per AICTE/UGC norms. 5. The Uttarakhand Government has granted its ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) on 9th March, 2011, for establishment of the petitioners Institute as one of the Constituent Colleges of Uttarakhand Technical University. Thus, the Institute came in existence as a result of policy decision taken by Government of Uttarakhand and was admitted as a Constituent College of Uttarakhand Technical University vide MOU dated 10.5.2011 and in the MOU it was specifically stated that Institute shall be run strictly as per the regulation framed by AICTE in the light of the fact that the Institute is a technical institution, imparting education governed and guided by an Act of Parliament, i.e., AICTE Act, 1987. 6. On 01.07.2011, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, published an advertisement and invited applications for different faculties in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, New Tehri. In the advertisement, it is mentioned that appointments will be made for one year and likely to be considered in second phase of interview against permanent position, those served one year probation may be relaxed. On 01.07.2011, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, published an advertisement and invited applications for different faculties in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, New Tehri. In the advertisement, it is mentioned that appointments will be made for one year and likely to be considered in second phase of interview against permanent position, those served one year probation may be relaxed. Thereafter, the Uttarakhand Technical University issued appointment letters to petitioners on the post of assistant professor with pay band of 15600-39100 plus AGP Rs. 6,000/-. In appointment letter, it was clearly mentioned that appointment was for one year and likely to be considered for second phase of interview for permanent position. 7. All the faculty members successfully completed one year and faced second phase of interview before expert committee dated 07.06.2012 and were issued another letter of regularization declaring due increment in salary status in June, 2012. After giving regularization letter of services to petitioners after completion of probation period of one year, a corrigendum was issued by the then Vice Chancellor Uttarakhand Technical University, in the month of October, 2012 by which Vice Chancellor declared that all the faculty members should be considered in temporary cadre till the government creates position for this Institute. The interview was held for 2012-13 session against the advertisement no. THDC-IHET/2/2012. The petitioners got one year probation period letter which mentions that after one year of this period they will be regularized after second phase of interview. But after completion of this period the Institute extended their services for one year based on a self-appraisal without any service break. This extension of service was for only one year which is completely in contradiction of the appointment letters given in 2012. 8. In the year 2014, the Director THDC-IHET issued directives to the faculty members to fill PBAS (Performance Appraisal) Form for service extensions. The matter of appointment and filling of performance appraisal for service extensions are under challenge before this Court. This Court vide order dated June 27, 2014 in (WPSB No. 193 of 2014) passed an order and on the next date of hearing, i.e., on July 17, 2014 (WPSB No. 193 of 2014) the faculty members were directed to submit their performance appraisal report before respondent no. 5 within three working days. It was further directed that the same shall be accepted and considered. Petitioners submitted the same on July 21, 2014. 5 within three working days. It was further directed that the same shall be accepted and considered. Petitioners submitted the same on July 21, 2014. But the Director THDC-IHET issued directive through E-mail to all faculty members to report to Uttarakhand Technical University for performance review on the basis of PBAS forms for extension of their services on July 24, 2014. In this regard, the Faculty Association THDC-IHET, sent an E-mail communication to the Director on July 22, 2014, with the prayer that since the matter is sub judice before the Court and the appointment of the faculty members are regular and the action of the management is under challenge in respect of filling up of PBAS forms for the purpose of extension of service and as per the interim order of this Court, there is no direction to appear before the Performance Review Committee and as such, it is not possible for them to appear before the Performance Review Committee. Instead of considering this prayer, Director THDC-IHET issued an order to the faculty members on July 30, 2014 that their services were extended up to July, 2014 and Performance Review Committee has not recommended renewal of petitioners’ contract. In addition to this, orders to hand over the charge and evacuation of residences have been issued to the faculty members. 9. This Court, vide order dated 28.08.2014, passed an order that THDC-IHET will not fill up the vacancies relating to the eligible candidates by way of appraisal. On 13.10.2014, learned counsel of the petitioners mentioned before this Court that the vacancies relatable to the petitioners are occupied by the guest faculty against which a statement has been given in the Court by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that “contrary to the apprehension raised by Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners, the concerned Institute/ respondent is not filling up the vacancies in any manner.” 10. This Court passed an order that the concerned Committee shall re-appraise the matter of the petitioners preferably within two weeks from today but not later than four weeks and the Committee shall file its report through its Counsel. The petitioners shall be at liberty to place any document and credential in support of their contention before the Committee. This Court passed an order that the concerned Committee shall re-appraise the matter of the petitioners preferably within two weeks from today but not later than four weeks and the Committee shall file its report through its Counsel. The petitioners shall be at liberty to place any document and credential in support of their contention before the Committee. This Court, vide order dated 03.03.2015, passed an interim order which reads as under:- “After hearing the matter at some length, this Court noticed that at present, in THDC Institute, there are no service rules, which govern their service conditions. There are of course regulations of University Grants Commission (from herein after referred to as “the UGC”) and guidelines framed by “All India Council for Technical Education” (from hereinafter referred to as “the AICTE”). We are of the opinion that in case the members of the teaching faculty were appointed in accordance with law and have all the qualifications to occupy the posts on which they have been appointed, giving them a temporary or contractual status would not be proper, particularly in view of the guidelines of the UGC to which counsel for the petitioners refers. At the same time in case they are not qualified to hold the posts, it would be in the fitness of things to consider their services as purely temporary in the nature. At the moment, we are primarily concerned with the students, who are undergoing different courses in the THDC Institute and they cannot be allowed to suffer because of the present issue. The respondents have also not dealt with the matter as it ought to have been done. We, therefore, constitute a committee of experts, which shall be chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand as we have been informed that apart from being the Chief Secretary of the Government he also holds the degree in Engineering, which would be useful. We do this being conscious of the stand already taken by the Government before us only with a hope that the welfare of the Institute and the students be kept in mind, without doing injustice to the teachers. We do this being conscious of the stand already taken by the Government before us only with a hope that the welfare of the Institute and the students be kept in mind, without doing injustice to the teachers. The other members of the Committee shall be as follows: an expert in Mechanical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee or from any other recognized Institute of national importance, another expert in Civil Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee or from any other recognized Institute of national importance, the third member would again be an expert in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee or from any other recognized Institute of national importance. Apart from the above, the Committee so constituted under the Chief Secretary of the State and the three experts, above shall co-opt services of one or two experts from any Institute of national importance, which they feel is desirable. The members of the Committee shall be paid the honorarium as permissible under the law, to be determined by the Chief Secretary. The Committee shall work as a Screening Committee to examine the teaching faculty who are presently occupying the posts and give a finding in each case and as to whether they are qualified to hold the posts to teach in the Institute, which is a premier institute of the State. The Committee shall also examine as to whether the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 294 (SB) of 2014, i.e. Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and Dr. Rajini Sharma had all the qualifications for the post. Their discontinuation will also be looked into by the Committee, in the light of their qualifications. No interference is presently being made as far as the impugned order dated 19.08.2014 is concerned. The respondents meanwhile shall consider engaging them as members of guest faculty. Let the Committee so constituted take decision within a period of two months from today and submit its report to this Court within one month thereafter.” Legal issues involved in the present writ petition 11. “Whether the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of teachers by the University in its “Constituent College” required any sanction by the State Government as provided in Clause (j) of Section 6 of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005?” 12. In this respect, the provisions of “the Act of 2005” require to be perused and considered. 13. “Whether the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of teachers by the University in its “Constituent College” required any sanction by the State Government as provided in Clause (j) of Section 6 of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005?” 12. In this respect, the provisions of “the Act of 2005” require to be perused and considered. 13. The Act of 2005 has been enacted to provide for the establishment of a Technical University in Uttarakhand for the advancement and development of Technical Education and for the matters connected therewith. Section 2(m) of the Act of 2005, defines “Constituent College” as follows:- “2(m) ‘Constituent College’ means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and declared as such by the Regulations.” Contentions of the petitioners 14. In the present case, when the infrastructure of “the College” was under progress with the entire Capital Investment to be done in phased manner, being guaranteed by the THDC Ltd. the college was agreed to be maintained by “the University” as per the MOU dated 10.5.2011 (Annexure-4 of WP). Prior to this MOU, the State Government, vide letter dated 09.03.2011, accorded its permission to the University run the College as “Constituent College.” 15. Clause 2(a) of the MOU specifically provides that there is no financial liability of the State Government or THDC Ltd. to maintain the College and it is the University which has to maintain the College. Thus, it is the University which has to maintain the College, from its own resources. 16. The MOU dated 10.5.2011 specifically provides that the posts of Staff required in the Courses as per the AICTE and UGC norms ‘stand created’. Under clause 2(d), the Board of Governors was to decide the timings of recruitment of the teaching staff; but the VC of the University shall be the chairman of the BOG and the recruitment shall be done by the University. 17. In the first phase, a public advertisement dated 01.07.2011 inviting applications from the eligible persons (CWP Ann-6) was issued. There is a condition in the said advertisement that initial appointment shall be for one year and on Self Appraisal Performance Index and final interview for appointment on permanent post, the period of one year already served shall be treated as having served the probation. 18. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.07.2011, appointment orders were issued to 6 faculties i.e. petitioner Nos. 18. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.07.2011, appointment orders were issued to 6 faculties i.e. petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 19. As per the assurance given in the Advertisement dated 1.7.2011, all these 6 faculties were regularized on 7.6.2012. 20. Before the issuance of above regularizations, the University issued another public advertisement dated 10.4.2012 inviting applications from eligible persons for the posts of various faculties. This second phase appointments were issued to 9 other petitioners on 31.07.2012; but before any such orders could be issued, the State Government vide letter dated 13.07.2012, conveyed to the University that the appointments can be done only after sanctioning of posts by the State Government. 21. Thus, it can be seen that prior to such a letter dated 13.7.2012, of the State Government, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 had already been issued regular appointments and they had already been treated as having completed their probation. 22. However on 31.7.2012, the University ignoring the letter dated 13.7.2012, issued appointment orders to the other 9 petitioners also on sanctioned posts. 23. The State Government, vide letter dated 14.8.2012, directed the University to appoint teachers on contract basis in the session 2012-13 till the posts are sanctioned in the constituent college. It is to point out that this letter dated 14.8.2012 indeed prohibits making regular appointments; but this letter directs the University to make appointments on contract basis till the regular appointments are made after sanctioning of the posts. What has not been explained, however, is as to how the University in pursuance of such directives changes the conditions of employment of regular employees (1st Phase) and of appointees of 2012, to convert their status to employees on contract basis for a session only? Therefore, the orders dated 14.8.2012 are ex-facie illegal to this extent. 24. The powers of the University to do recruitment of teaching staff under Clause 2 (d) of MOU on the post created as per provision of MOU are subject to Section 6(j) of the Act of 2005. 25. The Act of 2005, defines “Affiliated College”, “Approved Institution”, “Autonomous College”, “College” and “Existing College” as below:- “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Affiliated College” means an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of this Act and regulations of that University. 25. The Act of 2005, defines “Affiliated College”, “Approved Institution”, “Autonomous College”, “College” and “Existing College” as below:- “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Affiliated College” means an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of this Act and regulations of that University. (b) “Approved Institution” means an institution of technical learning approved by the University/State Government. (c) “Autonomous College” means an affiliated or associated college declared as such in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (as applicable to the State of Uttaranchal). (d) “College” means a college or an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with this Act and the Regulations; (e) “Existing College” means a college or an Institution which imparts technical education and is run and maintained by a University established by or under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (as applicable to the State of Uttarachal) (and includes a faculty of such University imparting technical education).” 26. Section 2(e) read with Section 4(2) de-affiliates and disassociates every technical college or Institution which is run and maintained by a University established by or under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (as applicable to the State of Uttaranchal) and even the faculties existing in such University imparting technical University stands disassociated or de-affiliated from such University and Section 4(2) provides statutory deeming affiliation of such technical college or Institution or faculties as affiliated College is defined in Section 2(a). It is relevant to point out that the Act of 2005 does not provide anywhere that such existing College or Institution which are maintained by erstwhile Universities shall be maintained by the University created under the Act of 2005. Therefore, the Constituent College shall be that College which is maintained by the Uttarakhand Technical University. Here is the case wherein the MOU itself stipulates that the College shall not be the financial liability of the State and University shall maintain the same from its own resources. Here, it is also relevant to point out that the Act of 2005 does not provide any financial assistance or funding by the State Government and Chapter VII providing for “Annual Reports and Accounts” provides only for proper supervision of the accounting and finances by the Uttarakhand Technical University. 27. Here, it is also relevant to point out that the Act of 2005 does not provide any financial assistance or funding by the State Government and Chapter VII providing for “Annual Reports and Accounts” provides only for proper supervision of the accounting and finances by the Uttarakhand Technical University. 27. Section 3 provides that the “Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the Executive Council and the Academic Council shall constitute a body Corporate by the name of the “Uttaranchal Technical University” (hereinafter referred to as “UTU”). The relevant portion of Section 6 reads as follows:- “6. Powers and Duties of the University:- The University shall have the following powers and duties namely:- (a) to (f)……………. (j) to make appointments of officers and other employees of the University to the posts created by the State Government; (k) to (m)…………….. (n) to do all such other acts or things whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as may be necessary to further the objects of the University.” 28. The issue is whether the words “Officers and other employees” comprehends “Teachers” also, so as to necessitate the prior order of the State Government creating such posts of teachers. Section 7 identifies the officers of the University and rather exhausts the category of the officers of the University. The terms of services of officers are to be governed by Section 15 read with Section 31(a) of the Act, 2005. The admitted position is that the Regulations have not been framed by the State Government in respect of UTU. The Teacher, unless appointed as “Pro-Vice Chancellor” does not find any place in the structure of the “Officers” of the University and thus the “Teacher” can not be termed as Officer referable in Section 6(j) of the Act, 2005. Chapter IV provides authorities of the UTU. Section 17 provides the powers of the Executive Council of the Uttarakhand Technical University which consist of State Government highest Ranking Officers, such as Secretaries, as ex-officio members and persons nominated or recommended by the State Government. Section 18 provides for the powers and duties of the Executive Council. The relevant part of Section 18 reads as under:- “18. Powers and duties of the Executive Council - (1) The Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University and shall have the following powers, namely:- (a) to (j)………………….. Section 18 provides for the powers and duties of the Executive Council. The relevant part of Section 18 reads as under:- “18. Powers and duties of the Executive Council - (1) The Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University and shall have the following powers, namely:- (a) to (j)………………….. (k) to determine the emoluments and terms and conditions of service of Staff of the University. (l)…………… (m) to regulate and determine all other matters concerning the University in accordance with this Act or the Regulations.” 29. It has further been submitted that so far as the word “other employees” figuring in Section 6(j) is concerned, their service conditions on appointment are to be regulated by the Regulations framed under clause (j) of Section 31 by the State Government. It was further submitted that the contention of the State that Section 31(j) of the Act, 2005 shall cover the field is not tenable because in such eventuality, there would be no appointment of teachers unless and until regulations are framed. The field of operation under Section 6(j) read with Regulations framed under Section 31 (j) of the Act, 2005 is distinct from the field occupied under clause (j) and (m) of Section 18(1) by the Executive Council which consist of high ranking officers of the State Government and eminent persons nominated or recommended by the Government. 30. Thus, the impugned letters dated 13.07.2012 and 14.8.2012 are ultra vires the powers of the State Government, according to learned counsel for the petitioners. 31. It was further submitted that, for the sake of argument, if it is assumed, although not admitted, that there is a power with the State Government, the Regulations having not been framed by the State Government in exercise of Section 31 (j) of the Act, 2005 and the Executive Council having ratified the appointment exercise, keeping in view the composition of the State Government, the State Government is deemed to have accorded its approval to the posts on which the appointments of the petitioners have been made. It is to point out that the State Government, on 14.8.2012, stated to be in the process of creating the posts of teachers and two years have passed; but the State Government is just sitting over the matter and this is the unfair practice to perpetuate ad-hoc system in the Institute. Contentions of the respondents 32. It is to point out that the State Government, on 14.8.2012, stated to be in the process of creating the posts of teachers and two years have passed; but the State Government is just sitting over the matter and this is the unfair practice to perpetuate ad-hoc system in the Institute. Contentions of the respondents 32. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Government Order dated 16.08.2012 issued by Government of Uttarakhand whereby the Government has directed that till the creation of the post of the teachers in the constituent college, the recruitment shall be made on contractual basis. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 5 that T.H.D.C. Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Bhagirathpuram, Tehri, Uttarakhand is a constituent college of Uttarakhand Technical University which is a State University and has been constituted under the Act of the Government of Uttarakhand known as Uttarakhand Technical University Act of 2005. 33. The constituent colleges have been defined in Section 2(m) of Uttarakhand Technical University Act of 2005 which reads as under: “Constituent College” means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and declared as such by the Regulations. 34. A perusal of the definition contained in Section 2(m) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act of 2005 would suggest that the constituent college is a college which is maintained and manage by the University itself. 35. Section 6(j) of Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005 provides that the appointment of the officers and other employees of the University shall be made by the University subject to the condition that the appointment shall be made on the posts created by the State Government. In other words, the substantive post can only be created by the State Government alone and the University on its own cannot create any post substantively. 36. Section 30 of the Act further provides that the first regulation of the University shall be made by the State Government by notification. 37. Section 31 of the Act further provides the matters on which the regulations will be framed. The provision of 31 (a) provides that the regulations shall be framed regarding the appointment, powers and duties of the officers of the University. 37. Section 31 of the Act further provides the matters on which the regulations will be framed. The provision of 31 (a) provides that the regulations shall be framed regarding the appointment, powers and duties of the officers of the University. Section 31 (j) further provides that the regulations shall be framed dealing the power to remove the officers (excluding Chancellor) and employee of the University and the terms and conditions of the services. 38. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the State Government is only competent authority to frame the first regulation dealing with the subject mentioned above and in absence of the regulation and sanction of the post by the State Government, the appointment made by the Institute will be a temporary arrangement as the power to make post substantive and power to make the procedure to appoint the employee vests in the State Government. Since the State Government has not created the post as yet, therefore, as a preventive measure, the Government has issued the impugned Government order. 39. Since the post has not been sanctioned by the State Government so far, therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they should be regularized on the post over which they are working on contract basis is patently illegal and erroneous. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the regularization on a post can be made only when there is a substantive post and in absence of the substantive post, no regularization can be made. 40. It was further submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the MOU executed between T.H.D.C. India Ltd. and Uttarakhand Technical University also suggest that the Institute shall be run by the Uttarakhand Technical University and the State Government has deep and pervasive control over the Uttarakhand Technical University and the T.H.D.C. Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Bhagirathpuram, Tehri, Uttarakhand has been established after ‘no objection certificate’ given to the University by the State Government. 41. As per the condition of MOU, the responsibility to run the institute is upon the Uttarakhand Technical University and as per clause 2(d) of the MOU, the responsibility of recruitment of teaching and non teaching staff is upon the Uttarakhand Technical University. 42. 41. As per the condition of MOU, the responsibility to run the institute is upon the Uttarakhand Technical University and as per clause 2(d) of the MOU, the responsibility of recruitment of teaching and non teaching staff is upon the Uttarakhand Technical University. 42. It was further submitted that the teachers in the University in different posts were appointed for a period of one year with the stipulation that they shall be considered in second phase of interview against permanent positions. Those who have served on one year probation may be relaxed. The self appraisal performance index will be sole criteria for final interview. The reading of the provision would suggest that there is no assurance that they shall be regularized over the post they are working. 43. The University, in the year 2012, regularized the services of certain teaching staffs putting the person on one year probation from the date of joining without any post duly sanctioned by the State Government. Since the State Government has not sanctioned the post in three constituent colleges situated in State of Uttarakhand including the T.H.D.C. Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Bhagirathpuram, Tehri, Uttarakhand and on coming to know that the appointments in these colleges are being made without any sanctioned post, therefore, the Government order dated 23.07.2012 was issued to stop the recruitment process. In continuation thereof, a Government order dated 16.08.2012 was issued by which it was provided that in all three constituent colleges, the appointment will be made on contract basis, till the sanction of the post and consequently the University vide its corrigendum letter dated 14.08.2012 has withdrawn the order of regularization. 44. All the petitioners have accepted the said condition of corrigendum and the service agreement was extended. The petitioners, without any protest, has accepted the condition of extension of service and joined the service. Again, for the academic session 2013-14, the services were extended on the basis of internal performance appraisal of academic year 2012-13 and order of extension of services dated 14.08.2013 was issued in which it has clearly been provided that this extension is only till the sanction of the post by the State Government or till July 2014. It has further been provided that further continuation in temporary cadre will be reviewed on performance appraisal for 2013-14. 45. It has further been provided that further continuation in temporary cadre will be reviewed on performance appraisal for 2013-14. 45. The petitioners have accepted the said condition without any protest and have not challenged the said condition at the relevant time and filed the writ petition in the year 2014 challenging the order dated 25.06.2014 in which it has been directed to fill the PBAS form for extension of services and after filing of the writ petition their prayers were amended adding some more prayers. This Court vide order dated 08.08.2014 had directed the petitioners to appear for interview and further directed that if the petitioners do not appear in interview, the university is free to fill up the vacancy. 46. Since the State Government has not created the posts so far, therefore, all the appointment are contractual appointment and the contract can only be renewed after examining the performance of the teachers and the performance could only be assessed after evaluation of the personal appraisal forms by the experts. It was submitted that the requirement of P.B.A.S. forms for extension of services is as per the AICTE norms required in order to maintain standard of education. 47. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 5 also submitted that MOU entered between T.H.D.C. and U.T.U. cannot override the provisions of Act and MOU should be read in consonance with the Act. Since the power to create the post is available to the State Government and no one else can create the post therefore, MOU can not be pressed into service for treating that the posts have been created. There cannot be any estoppel against statute and in this view of the matter regular appointment can be made only after creation of post by the State Government. 48. It is an admitted fact the initial appointment of all the petitioners were on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year. The advertisement also suggests that the post has been advertised for one year one. There is also no dispute that the appointment was made for a period of only one year. Now, the question arises as to whether a person appointed for a period of one year can claim regularization on the said post? Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. There is also no dispute that the appointment was made for a period of only one year. Now, the question arises as to whether a person appointed for a period of one year can claim regularization on the said post? Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that for regularization of services there must be a sanctioned post on which the regularization can be made and one of the most essential requirement is that the person claiming regularization must be appointed by a due process of law against a substantive vacancy, but in the present case none of the requirement is fulfilled therefore, no regularization of services can be made. 49. It is also submitted that mere continuation of service on temporary, ad-hoc and contractual basis does not confer any right to be considered for absorption in services. 50. Another question which has cropped up in the writ petition is as to whether PBAS form for extension of service is mandatory or not. It was submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioners was only for a period of one year, therefore, for extension of services, the same (PBAS form) will be required for the reason that the UGC regulation (known as UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in University and colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010) mandated that selection will be made on the basis of PBAS. Since, the petitioners are ad-hoc employees and working for a fixed period and after a period of one year contract of services they are required to submit the PBAS form, so that the institute may asses the suitability of the person in conformity with the regulations of UGC and if the person is not found to be fit as per regulations of UGC, the institute has to advertise the post by inviting application from suitable candidates. 51. As per Section 6 (j) of Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005 the appointment of the officers and other employee of the University shall be made by the University subject to the condition that the appointment shall be made on the post created by the State Government. In other words, the substantive post can only be created by the State Government alone and the University, on its own, can not create any post substantively. 52. In other words, the substantive post can only be created by the State Government alone and the University, on its own, can not create any post substantively. 52. Section 30 of the Act further provides that the first regulation of the University shall be made by the State Government by notification. 53. Section 31 of the Act further provides the matters on which the regulations will be framed. Section 31 (a) provides that the regulations shall be framed regarding the appointment, powers and duties of the officers of the University. Section 31 (j) further provides that the regulations shall be framed dealing the power to remove the officers (excluding Chancellor) and employee of the University and the terms and conditions of the services. 54. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions make its clear that the State Government is only competent authority to frame the first regulation dealing with the subject mentioned above and in the absence of regulations and sanction of the post by the State Government, the appointment made by the Institute will be a temporary arrangement as the power to make post substantive and power to make the procedure to appoint the employee vests with the State Government, according to learned Senior Counsel. 55. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 5 also submitted that the petitioners, from the date of filing of the petition, have made several applications without making amendment in the pleadings therefore, all the applications may kindly be treated as interlocutory applications and no reference can be made of these applications. Analysis 56. Thus, in a nutshell, the Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun was established under an enactment known as Uttarakhand Technical University Act by the State Government. The word ‘Constituent College’ means an institution maintained by the University or by the State Government and declared as such by the Regulations. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed pursuant to the mutual decision taken by the THDC India Limited and Uttarakhand Technical University. The MOU provided that the Institute would run as a Constituent College by Uttarakhand Technical University in self financing mode and would run courses as per UGC/AICTE norms. It was also provided that the Uttarakhand Technical University has taken the Constituent College without any liability on the State Government. The MOU provided that the Institute would run as a Constituent College by Uttarakhand Technical University in self financing mode and would run courses as per UGC/AICTE norms. It was also provided that the Uttarakhand Technical University has taken the Constituent College without any liability on the State Government. As per MOU, the post of teaching and non teaching staff, as per AICTE norms, will be ‘considered and created’ and the Board of Governance will decide the recruitment, as and when required. Salary was also to be paid as per AICTE/UGC norms. The Government of Uttarakhand granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ for establishment of the petitioners’ Institute as one of the Constituent Colleges of Uttarakhand Technical University. The Uttarakhand Technical University, thereafter, invited applications for different faculty positions in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering of Technology with the stipulation that the appointments will be made for one year and are likely to be considered in second phase of interview against permanent vacancies. 57. As per pleadings, this fact is under no dispute that the Uttarakhand Technical University issued appointment letters to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Professors and in the appointment letter it was mentioned that the appointment was for one year and is likely to be considered for second phase of interview for permanent positions. The petitioners, after completing one year, faced second phase of interview before Expert Committee and were issued letters of regularization declaring due increment in their salary status in June, 2012. After they were regularized and they completed probation period of one year, a corrigendum was issued by the then Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University in the month of October, 2012 whereby the Vice Chancellor declared that all the faculty members are to be considered in temporary cadre till the Government creates faculty positions in the Institute. 58. Once the services of the petitioners were regularized after completion of probation period of one year, and once, according to MOU, the posts were ‘considered and created’ it did not be-hove well for the Vice Chancellor to have said that the faculty positions shall be ‘created’ by the Government. This fact is under no dispute that the Institute was being run in self financing mode and, therefore, the intervention of the State Government was not required for creating faculty positions. 59. It is clarified here that the regularized posts may be either temporary or permanent. This fact is under no dispute that the Institute was being run in self financing mode and, therefore, the intervention of the State Government was not required for creating faculty positions. 59. It is clarified here that the regularized posts may be either temporary or permanent. If the service of any member is regularized, after probation period, thus the same does not necessarily mean that he has been regularized against a permanent post. The post may be temporary or permanent. Those posts which are not regularized are ‘ad-hoc posts’. There is no gainsaying the fact that even if the petitioners are regularized, they may continue to hold posts on temporary vacancies, which may, later on, be made permanent. There is however, substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that extension of service for only one year was in contradiction to the appointment letters given in the year 2012. It is further clarified here that the petitioners cannot be deemed to be on contract, since their services were already regularized. It is further clarified here that, while making them permanent, the management of THDC-IHET can ask the petitioners to appear before the Performance Review Committee. It was therefore not proper on the part of the respondents to discontinue the services of Dr. A.K. Singh and Dr. Rajni Sharma. The controversy, therefore, boils down to the following legal propositions:- 60. The appointment of the petitioners on the posts of teachers by the University in its Constituent College in self-financing mode required no sanction of the State Government as provided in Clause (j) of Section 6 of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005 for appointment, inasmuch as the MOU specifically provided that there will be no financial liability of the State Government or THDC Limited to maintain the college. It was the University who was required to maintain the college from its own resources and the teaching and non-teaching staff stands created as per AICTE and UGC norms and the Constituent College was to run in the self financing mode. 61. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 had already been given regular appointments, after completing their period of probation, prior to letter dated 13.07.2012. On 31.07.2012 the University, ignoring the letter dated 13.07.2012 issued appointment letters to other 9 petitioners on sanctioned posts. 61. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 had already been given regular appointments, after completing their period of probation, prior to letter dated 13.07.2012. On 31.07.2012 the University, ignoring the letter dated 13.07.2012 issued appointment letters to other 9 petitioners on sanctioned posts. The order dated 14.08.2012 issued by the State Government to appoint teachers on contract basis till the posts are sanctioned in the Constituent College, is therefore not sustainable inasmuch as the Constituent College was to run in the self financing mode. The posts, according to MOU ‘stood created’. The petitioners were given regular appointments after completing the period of probation and therefore their status cannot be reverted from ‘regular employees’ to ‘contract employees’. The only caveat is that the posts may not be deemed permanent, they may still continue to be temporary posts, but the fact of the matter is that the petitioners shall continue to be termed as regular employees, and not ad-hoc or contract employees. Before confirming them on the permanent posts, whenever occurring, the management can very well ask the petitioners or other employees to furnish self appraisal form and evaluate their performance, as is done in any other services. In other words, the management will be well within its competence to evaluate the working of the staff at any point of time and can also initiate departmental action, if required, as is done in any other University or Institute. 62. It is an admitted fact that the Regulations have not been framed by the State Government in respect of Uttarakhand Technical University Act as per Section 31 (j) of the Act. Executive counsel has also ratified the exercise of appointment of the petitioners. As per MOU between THDC India Limited and Uttarakhand Technical University, the post of teaching and non-teaching staff, as per AICTE norms were ‘considered as created’. The very definition of Constituent College means an institution either maintained by the University or by the State Government or declared as such by the Regulations. Regulations have not been framed as yet and the University has already undertaken through MOU that such a Constituent College shall be maintained by it. The very definition of Constituent College means an institution either maintained by the University or by the State Government or declared as such by the Regulations. Regulations have not been framed as yet and the University has already undertaken through MOU that such a Constituent College shall be maintained by it. Section 6 (j) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005 provides that the appointment of the officers and other employees of the University shall be made by the University (which, in the instant case, have been done) subject to the condition that the appointment shall be made on the posts created by the State Government. It is to be noted here that the posts, on which the petitioners are working, are in the self financing mode and therefore Section 6 (j) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005 shall be applicable only to those posts which are not in self financing mode. It goes without saying that the State Government only is competent to frame regulations (which have not been done). The State Government has not created the posts, in terms of Section 6(j) of the Uttarakhand Technical University Act, 2005. ‘Temporary post’, does not mean ‘post on contract basis’ or ‘on ad-hoc basis’. Once the services of the petitioners are regularized, their services can be dispensed with only through established norms. They cannot be termed as ‘contract employees’, whose tenure of service is extendable from year to year, as has been done in the instant case. Posts have already been created to run a Constituent College in a self financing mode, although it is a different fact that these posts may not be of permanent nature. These posts may be of temporary nature but the same cannot deny the petitioners the status of having occupied the posts on regular vacancies. The work and performance of the petitioners can therefore be assessed, evaluated on the basis of personal appraisal form by the experts, not for renewing their period of contract (as they are not contract employees) but for confirming them on the permanent posts, whenever they occur. Their services have already been regularized, as the Constituent College is running in self financing mode. It is made clear that the status of the petitioners is neither contractual nor they were appointed on ad-hoc basis. Now, they have been regularized in a college being run in self financing mode. 63. Their services have already been regularized, as the Constituent College is running in self financing mode. It is made clear that the status of the petitioners is neither contractual nor they were appointed on ad-hoc basis. Now, they have been regularized in a college being run in self financing mode. 63. To illustrate regularization of service in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri, a Constituent College of Uttarakhand Technical University in respect of Dr. Ramna Tripathi (Department of Physics) THDC Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri and Dr. Richa Bijalwan (Department of English), the letters of the Institute are reproduced herein below for convenience:- “To Dr. Ramna Tripathi Dept. Physics THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri Sub: Regularisation of service in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri a constituent college of UTU. Dear Dr. Ramna Tripathi On the basis of expert committee recommendations dated June 07, 2012, considering your educational qualifications, experience and performance, we are pleased to regularize your service for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics in the institute with the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 + AGP 7000 at a basic salary of Rs.16248 + 7000 (AGP) + DA as applicable in other government colleges of UTU as and when declared by Govt. UK. You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. A notice period of two months in advance from either side shall be applicable in the event of your before leaving the institute. ……………………………. To Dr. Richa Bijalwan Dept. English THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri Sub: Regularisation of service in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri a constituent college of UTU. Dear Dr. Richa Bijalwan On the basis of expert committee recommendations dated June 07, 2012, considering your educational qualifications, experience and performance, we are pleased to regularize your service for the post of Assistant Professor in English in the institute with the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 + AGP 7000 at a basic salary of Rs.16248 + 7000 (AGP) + DA as applicable in other government colleges of UTU as and when declared by Govt. UK. You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. 15,600-39,100 + AGP 7000 at a basic salary of Rs.16248 + 7000 (AGP) + DA as applicable in other government colleges of UTU as and when declared by Govt. UK. You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. A notice period of two months in advance from either side shall be applicable in the event of your before leaving the institute.” 64. What is ‘substantive capacity’ has been dealt with by Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision of G.C. Gupta & others vs. N.K. Pandey and others, 1988 (1) SCC 316 , as follows:- “13. The importance of the decision in Baleshwar Dass case lies in the meaningful interpretation of the words ‘substantive capacity.’ Krishna Iyer, J. affirming the principle in his own charismatic and picturesque language, observed: [SCC pp. 237-38, SCC (L&S) p. 543, para 20] We must emphasise that while temporary and permanent posts have great relevancy in regard to the career of government servants, keeping posts temporary for long, sometimes by annual renewals for several years, and denying the claims of the incumbents on the score that their posts are temporary makes no sense and strikes us as arbitrary, especially when both temporary and permanent appointees are functionally identified. If, in the normal course, a post is temporary in the real sense and the appointee knows that his tenure cannot exceed the post in longevity, there cannot be anything unfair or capricious in clothing him with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for certain departmental or like purposes, declared temporary, but it is within the ken of both the government and the appointee that the temporary posts re virtually long-lived. It is irrational to reject the claim of the ‘temporary’ appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We must also express emphatically that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court’s pronouncements is that officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis. It is irrational to reject the claim of the ‘temporary’ appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We must also express emphatically that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court’s pronouncements is that officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits, for government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categoric and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts. While rules regulating conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under proviso to Article 309, even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. Adverting to the oft-quoted observations of Chandrachud, C.J. in S.B. Patwardhan case that “seniority cannot depend on the inglorious uncertainties of confirmation” and to his own in N.K. Chauhan case that “seniority, normally, is measured by length of continuous officiating service” the learned Judge observed that although an appointee to a permanent post acquires certain rights which one who fills a temporary post cannot claim, nevertheless, when the post is not purely temporary of ad hoc or of short duration or of an adventitious nature, the holder of such temporary post cannot be degraded to the position of one who by accident of circumstances, or for a fugitive tenure occupies the temporary post for a fleeting term. The learned Judge while accepting that there was a distinction between permanent and temporary posts inasmuch as permanency carries with it other rights than mere seniority and promotion, brought out the ‘propinquity in status’ of permanent and temporary Assistant Engineers in the special conspectus of the facts before him and found no justification to hold that when Engineers were appointed to temporary posts but after fulfillment of the tests for regular appointment, including consultation with the Public Service Commission, they were not appointed in a substantive capacity. 14. 14. The ultimate ratio of the decision in Baleshwar Dass case is best brought out in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. in the following passage: [SCC p. 243, SCC (L&S) p. 548, paras 31 and 32] Substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or character of the post……. a person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. Once we understand ‘substantive capacity’ in the above sense, we may be able to rationalise the situation. If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity. It is to be emphasised that the Court in Baleshwar Dass case did not take upon itself the task of determining whether the temporary Assistant Engineers were entitled to have the benefit of their entire period of service in reckoning seniority under Rule 23 of the Rules, but left it to the Government to ascertain the facts and determine the question in the light of the principles laid down whether the capacity in which the posts had been held was substantive or temporary. The emerging principle is that the temporary Assistant Engineers were entitled to the benefit of their seniority reckoned according to the date of order of appointment to the Service in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules w.e.f. the date of their absorption into the Service by the Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission i.e. from the date from which they became ‘Members of the Service’ within the meaning of Rule 3 (b) of the Rules. 15. In legal matters, some degree of certainty is as valuable a part of justice as perfection. One reason for consistency is that people often regulate their conduct with reference to existing rules, which makes it important for Judges to abide by them. 15. In legal matters, some degree of certainty is as valuable a part of justice as perfection. One reason for consistency is that people often regulate their conduct with reference to existing rules, which makes it important for Judges to abide by them. Innovations can be unsettling and lead to a loss of confidence: Dias’ Jurisprudence, 4th Edn., p. 286. (Emphasis supplied) 65. Thus it goes without saying that the petitioners in the instant case were regularized on the post of Assistant Professor in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology, Tehri. They were however, on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. The following corrigendum was issued by the University, thereafter on 14.08.2012:- “Corrigendum on THDC-IHPET, New Tehri Appointments-2012 All the teachers of the THDC-IHPET, New Tehri selected in 2011 various positions and again selected on same positions in 2012 will remain temporary cadre till the Government of Uttarakhand creates the positions. However relaxation of age and probation remain as it awarded when government created positions are notified and there will be interview for regular cadre where performance will be reviewed by Selection Committee. All the appointment letters issued by University will be considered with this note.” 66. Further, the relevant portion of memorandum of understanding (MOU) between THDC India Limited and Uttarakhand Technical University reads as follows:- “(a) The Institute will be run by UTU as a Constituent College of the University/Institute of UTU and no financial liability shall devolve on THDCIL. (b) UTU shall run the Institute in self-finance mode and shall meet all recurring expenses incurred on staff remuneration, purchase of consumables, R&M of facilities etc. (c) UTU shall process all applications and registrations for student enrolments, and conduct all academic duties including exams and graduation. UTU will prescribe, collect and administer all requisite Fees. UTU shall ensure delivery of all academic activities relating to delivery of programmes such as teaching, examinations, academic planning etc. (d) UTU shall recruit and appoint all teaching and non-teaching staff required for running the Institute as per AICTE norms. UTU shall pay salaries and all associated expenses of staff as per AICTE/UGC norms and pay scales.” (Emphasis supplied) 67. By way of Annexure No.5, the Government in the training and technical Education Department has already issued a letter on 09.03.2011 holding that THDC Engineering College will be a ‘constituent college’ of Uttarakhand Technical University. UTU shall pay salaries and all associated expenses of staff as per AICTE/UGC norms and pay scales.” (Emphasis supplied) 67. By way of Annexure No.5, the Government in the training and technical Education Department has already issued a letter on 09.03.2011 holding that THDC Engineering College will be a ‘constituent college’ of Uttarakhand Technical University. Conclusion 68. It is therefore concluded that service of the petitioners stood regularized and their posts stood ‘considered and created’ in the self financing mode. Had the posts not been created, under the self financing mode, the things would have been different. In that case, probably approval of State Government might have been desirable. This Court is not dealing with such aspect of the matter, inasmuch as it has confined itself to the regularization, as per MOU, on completion of period of probation, on the posts thus created, in self financing mode. This Court is also focused on the regularization of the posts, which stood created, in view of MOU. This Court has not expressed its opinion as to whether the petitioners are holding their posts on substantive vacancy or not. This Court has also not expressed any opinion as to whether they are holding their posts on temporary or permanent vacancies or not. This Court has to conclude the discussions in terms of the reliefs sought, and not beyond that. Any reference beyond that is simply for the purpose of facilitating discussion and not for the purpose of concluding the writ petitions. Suffice will it be to say that the petitioners are not ad-hoc employees. They are not working on contract basis. They are entitled to hold their posts, even dehors the creation of these posts by the State Government. This fact is being underlined, again and again, that the petitioners hold their posts which have been created under the self financing mode. The appropriate authority may however, evaluate their performance from time to time as per UGC Regulations and AICTE norms, to maintain the standard of education, as is done in other similarly situated institutions. In other words, the petitioners cannot be permitted to sit idle, for the sake of argument, keeping in mind that, once they have been regularized, their work performance cannot be evaluated and they cannot be removed from their posts, in case they do not perform. That can be done, but, according to law. In other words, the petitioners cannot be permitted to sit idle, for the sake of argument, keeping in mind that, once they have been regularized, their work performance cannot be evaluated and they cannot be removed from their posts, in case they do not perform. That can be done, but, according to law. Regulations have not been framed as yet. The State Government is therefore advised to frame Regulations as early as possible, so as to fill up the void thus created. In any case AICTE guidelines are to be followed to maintain the standard of teaching in the constituent college, run by the Uttarakhand Technical University, who has engaged the petitioners without financial liability of the State, from its own Corpus (resources). 69. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to issue mandamus commanding the respondents to release the arrears of salary of the petitioners including increments and other benefits in terms of their initial appointment letters. This Court also refuses to issue direction to award, compensation or damages to the petitioners as claimed by them in the writ petition. This Court also does not see any tortious liability on the part of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The Court also refuses to issue direction to restrain the State from issuing any Government Order, in case the Government chooses to do so to create vacancies, other than in self financing mode. It is however, made clear that such Government Orders will not adversely affect the regularization of the petitioners. 70. Impugned corrigendum dated 14.08.2012 and consequential orders are hereby set aside. The condition whereby the petitioners, who were regularized on their posts, were directed to submit PBAS form for extension of their tenure is set aside and consequential orders are also set aside. 71. Writ petitions thus stand disposed of. All the interim orders to the contrary, if any, stand vacated. 72. In this matter, intervention application on behalf of Mr. Ajay Swaroop Raturi and Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Pandey has been pressed by Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate at the last stage. This Court is not inclined to pass any orders at a stage when arguments had already been heard. There is no occasion to pass any order on intervention application. The same is hereby rejected. Ajay Swaroop Raturi and Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Pandey has been pressed by Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate at the last stage. This Court is not inclined to pass any orders at a stage when arguments had already been heard. There is no occasion to pass any order on intervention application. The same is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that rejection of this application will not prejudice their rights before this Court or any other forum.