JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. These three writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, are being decided by this common judgment. However, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No. 2507 (SS) of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "first petition") is being taken as the leading case and the facts and pleadings shall be taken therefrom. 2. This first petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, has come up at the instance of 30 petitioners who were Class III and Class IV employees, at Colvin Taluqdar's Inter College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the College) and have been terminated/ceased to work on account of abolition of post. Thirty orders impugned in first petition are Annexures 1 to 30. It is stated therein that the College has followed principle of last come first go in terminating petitioners. 3. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 are Class III employee and 5 to 30 are Class IV employee. They have further sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution dated 8th January, 2014 passed by Managing Committee of the Management of the College (hereinafter referred to as MCM) together with consequential decision dated 06.02.2004, taken by sub-committee. There are two prayers of writ of mandamus (I) to direct the respondents college to allow petitioners to work as Class III and IV employees and to pay their salary, and (II) to direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to take college into grant-in-aid list and undertake responsibility to pay salary to petitioners. 4. In Writ Petition No. 3817 (SS) of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "second petition") there is a single petitioner, who was working as a Class-III employee and terminated vide order dated 19.02.2004. 5. Writ Petition No. 121 (SS) of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "third petition") has come up at the instance of 15 petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 is a Class-III employee and terminated vide order dated 14.05.2004 while petitioners no. 2 to 15 all are Class-IV employees. However, petitioners no. 2 to 11 have been terminated vide order dated 14.05.2004 and petitioners no. 12 to 15, terminated vide order dated 11.02.2004. 6. Brief historical background giving rise to the present dispute, as per the pleadings of writ petition, are as under. 7. 2 to 15 all are Class-IV employees. However, petitioners no. 2 to 11 have been terminated vide order dated 14.05.2004 and petitioners no. 12 to 15, terminated vide order dated 11.02.2004. 6. Brief historical background giving rise to the present dispute, as per the pleadings of writ petition, are as under. 7. The College is run and managed by "Colvin Schools Society" (hereinafter referred to as the Society) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The college is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P., (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Board") under provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as the Act 1921) as well as Rules and Regulations framed thereunder: It has also got an approved scheme of administration to govern the affairs of the College. It is said that some maintenance and compensatory grants used to be given by State Government which continued upto 1993-94. Thereafter management committed default in supplying details of income and expenditure. Copy of details of yearwise grant-in-aid received by College upto 1992-93 has been placed on record as Annexure-32 of the first petition, which shows that grant was received from 1969-70 to 1992-93. The College got recognition from the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination (hereinafter referred to as the "CISCE") and a Certificate of Affiliation was issued on 25.11.1980. In furtherance thereof, the College, established a separate English Medium Wing which is also being run by the MCM. 8. After receiving affiliation certificate dated 25.11.1980, the MCM requested State Government to grant permission and no objection to the College for imparting education in commerce preparing students for High School and Intermediate level exam conducted by CISCE in view of prescriptions made under Regulation 8(f) as provided vide Government Order dated 28.08.1980. No objection was issued by State Government vide Government Order dated 20.09.1980 for imparting education and preparing students to appear in examination conducted by CISCE on the condition that imparting of education for High School and Intermediate examination conducted by U.P. Board shall continue and further that it shall be imperative and unavoidable for the College to impart education for preparing students for appearing in High School and Intermediate examination conducted by U.P. Board. This position was reiterated/clarified by State Government vide letter dated 19.07.1983. 9. Petitioners no. 1 to 4 are confirmed Class-III employees of the College. Petitioner no. This position was reiterated/clarified by State Government vide letter dated 19.07.1983. 9. Petitioners no. 1 to 4 are confirmed Class-III employees of the College. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Clerk on 23.01.1979 and petitioners no. 2 to 4 were appointed on 15.05.1979, 01.07.1993 and 09.04.1996 respectively. These petitioners were confirmed in Class-III on 01.01.1990, 01.07.1991 and 01.12.1999. Petitioners no. 5 to 30 are all Class-IV employees working in various categories, i.e., Peon, Lab Assistant, Chowkidar, Electrician Meson, Plumber, Sweeper and Gardener, having been appointed between 1970 to 1999. They all are confirmed employees on their respective posts. 10. Abruptly the MCM passed order dated 19.02.2004 terminating petitioners no. 1 to 4 w.e.f. 21.02.2004. Similarly, petitioners no. 5 to 30 were also terminated vide order dated 11.02.2004 w.e.f. 14.02.2004. The orders of terminations of petitioners no. 1 to 4 are Annexures-1 to 4 and those of petitioners no. 5 to 30 are Annexures 5 to 30, respectively of first petition. 11. The background facts to show alleged arbitrariness resulting in the impugned orders of termination alleges a deep rooted conspiracy on the part of respondent no. 5. It is said that he has taken decision to close down certain part of the College and to abolish posts on which petitioners were working. The decision to close down certain back part of College and abolish the post has been taken arbitrarily and illegally and has background of a deep rooted conspiracy. These facts are said to be demonstrated by stating following facts. 12. The College was established on a large chunk of land of about 89 acre situated on the University Road, Lucknow. Initially in 1892, it was a unit of erstwhile Canning College. Later on a land of about 132 acre 3 biswas, 8 biswansis and 8 Katuwanshi leased out in favour of Principal of the College by State Government for a period of 90 years, with a stipulation of renewal of lease on expiry of each 30 years, vide lease deed dated 18.07.1964. For U.P. Board's Intermediate Wing of the College, about more than 3 crores is in deposit in various banks in the name of Principal of the College. Respondent no.5 Manager of the College was also member of U.P. Legislative Council. He is owner of property situate at about 32 kms. from Lucknow and Lucknow Raibarelly Road named as "Shivgarh Resort". For U.P. Board's Intermediate Wing of the College, about more than 3 crores is in deposit in various banks in the name of Principal of the College. Respondent no.5 Manager of the College was also member of U.P. Legislative Council. He is owner of property situate at about 32 kms. from Lucknow and Lucknow Raibarelly Road named as "Shivgarh Resort". He wants to utilise College property for other than educational purposes which may yield money to him. The respondent no. 5 after taking charge of the Office of Manager of MCM, in the year 2000, started giving effect to his ill motives. A resolution (Annexure-40 to the first petition) was passed by MCM to disaffiliate the College from U.P. Board and not to impart education to the students appearing in High School and Intermediate Examination conduction by U.P. Board. The aforesaid disaffiliation was to be given effect from academic Session 2002-03. In furtherance of aforesaid resolution, Management sent a letter dated 18.01.2002 to Director, Secondary Education, Lucknow. This was with an intention to take away College from the purview of U.P. Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974. The Management further passed resolution dated 13.06.2002 for not admitting students for Classes 6th, 7th and 8th for academic session 2002-03 and a notice to this effect was issued on 15.06.2002. The District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "DIOS") vide letter dated 17.06.2002 requested Management to continue imparting education for Classes 6th, 7th and 8th and not to discontinue the same. A similar direction was given by DIOS vide letter dated 19.07.2002 and 07.08.2002. 13. The MCM filed Writ Petition No. 6415 (SS) of 2002, wherein an interim order was passed on 14.11.2002 staying operation of DIOS's letters dated 19.07.2002 and 07.08.2002. It is said that thereafter the orders of termination have been passed patently illegally and in utter violation of provisions of Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. 14. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioners urged that eleven Teachers who were working in U.P. Board's Wing of the College were terminated pursuant to resolution dated 28.06.2003, whereby 22 posts of Teachers were abolished. The termination orders were issued on 30.07.2003. The aforesaid termination was challenged by the said 11 Teachers in Writ Petition No. 4704 (SS) of 2003. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioners urged that eleven Teachers who were working in U.P. Board's Wing of the College were terminated pursuant to resolution dated 28.06.2003, whereby 22 posts of Teachers were abolished. The termination orders were issued on 30.07.2003. The aforesaid termination was challenged by the said 11 Teachers in Writ Petition No. 4704 (SS) of 2003. This writ petition was decided alongwith four other writ petitions vide judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed by a Division Bench and the operative part of the judgment contained in para 63 is as under: "63. In view of the conclusion reached above, all the five writ petitions are finally disposed of as under: 1. The orders dated 30.7.2003 (annexures-1 to 11), by which the services of the petitioners of writ petition No. 4704 of 2003 were dispensed with, are quashed with a direction to the College/Management to ensure payment of salary etc. to these teachers as if the orders dated 30.7.2003 were never in existence. 2. The opposite-parties are directed to ensure that so long as the U.P. Board Wing of the College continues to be recognized one, education to the students from classes VI to XII is imparted, as was being done prior to the filing of these writ petitions. 3. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education is hereby directed to take an early decision and to communicate the decision so taken to the College, within a period of two months from today, under Regulation 10 of Chapter VII of the Regulation on the notice/letter dated 14/18.1.2002 of the management proposing to close down U.P. Board Wing of the College. 4. In the event of permission for closing down the U.P. Board Wing is refused by the Board, the Director of Secondary Education will take action under sub-section (3) of Section 16-D of the Act, either for withdrawing the recognition or for appointment of Authorized Controller and the Board or the Government, as the case may be, will take suitable action according to law as early as possible, keeping in view the next ensuing academic session. 5. In case the Board refuses to closing down of the institution under Regulation 10 of Chapter VII, the Govt. 5. In case the Board refuses to closing down of the institution under Regulation 10 of Chapter VII, the Govt. of U.P. will take necessary steps within a period of two months from the date of decision of the Board, for bringing the teachers and the staff of U.P. Board Wing within the purview of the Act of 1971 and will also take steps within the same period to take the College in the list of colleges receiving grant-in-aid and this arrangement shall continue so long as the recognition of U.P. board Wing continues. 6. The Director of Secondary Education and the Government of U.P. are commanded to ensure in due course that the affairs of the U.P. Board Wing of the College run in accordance with the Approval Scheme of Administration consistent with the principles enumerated in Third Schedule of the Act of 1921. 7. The Government of U.P. is further directed to ensure that classes VI, VII and VIII which were running earlier, run further unless closing down of those classes is permitted by it or by the authority competent to do so. The reliefs, not granted expressly by the orders or directions above, shall be treated to have been refused. No orders as to costs." (emphasis added) 15. The Management preferred special leave petition before Apex Court, in which an interim order was passed directing parties to maintain status quo and thereafter the appeals have been decided vide judgment dated 11.10.2011. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of Apex Court's decision, since Teachers have been allowed to continue, the Class-III and Class-IV employees are also entitled to continue and, therefore, the same benefit should be accorded to them. He also contended that in the no objection certificate granted to College for affiliation with CISCE, there was a condition that College shall continue to conduct classes for preparing students for the examinations conducted by U.P. Board and in that view of the matter it could not have closed down the aforesaid classes and abolished posts as it was wholly illegal. He relied on the decision of Apex Court wherein this aspect has been considered. 17. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that aforesaid decision is confined to only 11 teachers who were party in the writ petition, and, with regard to affiliation etc. He relied on the decision of Apex Court wherein this aspect has been considered. 17. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that aforesaid decision is confined to only 11 teachers who were party in the writ petition, and, with regard to affiliation etc. no relief was granted and the judgment of this court has been whittled down substantially, therefore, relief sought by petitioners cannot be granted, particularly considering the fact that abolition of posts is the privilege of Management. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at and perused the record. 19. The disaffiliation is required to be observed in compliance of Regulation 10 of the Regulations framed under Act, 1921. The Apex Court after considering Regulation 10, and rejecting contention of counsel for College that it imposes arbitrary condition, in para 27 of the judgment said: "27. We quite see that the shifting of an institution from the course of one board to another course is not closing down of an institution as such, but at the same time in the context of an affiliation with the State Board it comes to a closing down of the institution. All that Regulation No.10 requires is that the concerned High School or Intermediate College has to give a written notice one year in advance setting forth the reasons for the closure of the institution. The board may examine them and permit the closure subject to appropriate conditions and transfer of records of the institution to another institution as the occasion may require. This is because the record of the students who were attending the institution earlier is required to be preserved. It is also implicit that the interest of the teachers is also to be taken into consideration, and they are required to be adjusted appropriately. In our view, this provision is by way of a regulation and cannot be read in any way as an arbitrary restriction." (emphasis added) 20. Thereafter the Court also considered an additional affidavit filed by Manager of the College, before Apex Court, and in paras 28 and 29 it said as under: "28. In our view, this provision is by way of a regulation and cannot be read in any way as an arbitrary restriction." (emphasis added) 20. Thereafter the Court also considered an additional affidavit filed by Manager of the College, before Apex Court, and in paras 28 and 29 it said as under: "28. We may as well note in this connection that in paragraph 7 of the Additional Affidavit of Shri Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh, Manager of the appellant's college affirmed on 1.8.2010 in C.A No. 5427/2008, it is stated as follows: - "That the college at this stage is ready to start a High School & Intermediate Wing in the college which would be affiliated to the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, Allahabad. In this High School & Intermediate Wing Classes from 6 to 12 would be re-started in some section of the college building, which is at present available with the Petitioner College. For this purpose a section of existing building would be ear marked for conducting Classes from 6 to 12 under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act." 29. We have noted the submissions of the counsel for the parties. As a matter of fact, the State of U.P. or the U.P. State Board did not have any objection as such to the starting of the ICSE course by the appellant society. What they were insisting was that the course run by the U.P. State Board also should be run simultaneously. With respect to these submissions of the respondents it was pointed out by the appellant that the parents were expressing their preference for the ICSE course, the number of students opting for the State board course in the appellant's school and college was dwindling, and the appellant was finding it uneconomical to run both the courses, since from 1993 it was not receiving any grants from the State Government. In any case the appellant had expressed willingness to continue the services of the teachers, who were teaching the State Board's Course, and it appears that some of the teachers who were earlier teaching in the State Board Syllabus have been continued in the appellant institution for ICSE Course. It is also to be noted that though for over seven years the course of the U.P. State Board is not being run by the appellant institution, it has offered to restart the course once again. It is also to be noted that though for over seven years the course of the U.P. State Board is not being run by the appellant institution, it has offered to restart the course once again. In view of this scenario in the facts of the present case, it would be rather academic to go into the controversy which is raised before us. All these proceedings can be disposed of by giving appropriate directions to the U.P. State Board and the appellants." (emphasis added) 21. The directions issued by this Court as contained in para 63 of the judgement, therefore, have been modified by Apex Court by issuing its own directions in para 30 of the judgment, as under: "30. In view of what is stated above we pass the following order: - (i) The directions contained in paragraph 63 (2), (3), (5) and (6) of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 17.11.2004 are modified, and the U.P. State Board is directed to take a decision within two months from the receipt of this order on appellant's letter dated 18.1.2002 with respect to their decision to close down the U.P. State Board Wing. The Board will however consider whether appellant's original request is now altered in view of paragraph 7 of their affidavit dated 1.8.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5747/2008 to restart the High School and Intermediate wing in some appropriate section of the college building for conducting classes from VI to XII under the U.P. State Board. (ii) If such a decision to restart the State Board's course is taken, it shall be started from the academic year 2012-13. The State Government will issue necessary grants to this section, and the above-mentioned ten teachers earlier teaching the State Board's Course and continuing to remain with the appellant society, may be shifted to the classes taking State Board's Course. (iii) The direction in paragraph 63 (1) is confined to the ten teachers presently remaining with the appellant, though the appellant society shall at the earliest settle in accordance with law, if not settled so far, all the dues of other teachers who have left the institution, in the meanwhile. (iv) The direction contained in paragraph 63 (4) is no longer required. (iv) The direction contained in paragraph 63 (4) is no longer required. (v) The direction contained in paragraph 63 (7) is modified, and it is directed that if the U.P. Board accepts that running of the U.P. State Board course is no longer feasible, then, it will be open to the U.P. State Board to issue a direction not to restart that course anymore. (emphasis added) 22. It has been brought on record that in compliance of Apex Court's decision and direction contained in para 30(i) and (ii) the U.P. Board has taken a decision in its meeting dated 19.03.2012 for continuing Classes from 6th to 12th affiliated to U.P. Board and this has been communicated to College. In view thereof Classes from 6th to 12th are continuing in the College. 23. It is thus evident from record that disaffiliation of classes, run to prepare students for examinations conducted by U.P. Board never took place in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Regulation 10, which was admittedly binding upon the College. That being so, the College continued to be a recognized College of U.P. Board, hence could not have terminated Class-III and IV staffs without seeking approval from DIOS, whether by way of punishment or otherwise. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that termination of petitioners by means of impugned orders was patently illegal. 24. Now the question comes regarding relief to be granted to petitioners. 25. As a result of holding termination orders illegal, petitioners clearly are entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, except arrears of salary. It has not been disputed that after their termination, petitioners have not served the College since there was no interim order passed by this Court. The Apex Court's decision allowed restart of classes with U.P. Board affiliation, with effect from academic session 2012-13 hence in that view of the matter, for the purpose of arrears of salary the ends of justice would meet, if petitioners are allowed 50% of back wages and full salary from academic session 2012-13, but for other purposes they shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. I order accordingly. 26. All the writ petitions are allowed in the manner as above. 27. No costs.