JUDGMENT : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. In this group of petitions, the Sardar Patel University has preferred Special Civil Applications Nos. 3799 of 2011 to 3801 of 2011 and 3803 of 2011 to 3813 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common interim order passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) dated 17.03.2011, in Applications Nos. 12 of 2011 to 25 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has restrained the petitioner University from proceeding with the recruitment process for different non-teaching posts such as, Junior Laboratory Assistant, Hamal, Peon and Junior Clerk-cum-Typist. The Tribunal has further restrained the University from dispensing with the services of the first respondents (“the daily-wagers”) in the said petitions, who were working on daily-wage basis on such posts. 2. Special Civil Applications Nos. 6047 of 2011 to 6053 of 2011 have been preferred by those persons who have been selected in the process of recruitment and have, during the pendency of the present petitions, been granted appointments and are serving on different posts. The challenge in these petitions also is to the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Tribunal. 3. The brief factual background in which the petitions have been filed, is as follows: 4. The petitioner University is constituted under the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (“the Act” for short). It receives grant from the State Government under Section 23(4) of the Act. The University received a communication dated 23.08.2010 from the State Government informing it that for the purpose of initiating the process of recruitment in respect of certain unfilled posts in the reserved category, no prior permission was required to be taken from the Finance Department. An advertisement dated 07.09.2012 was issued in this regard, calling for applications from eligible candidates. In view thereof, the University initiated the process to fill up the following posts:- S. No. Name of Posts SC ST SEBC OPEN Total 1. Junior Lab Assistant 1 2 1 1 5 2. Hamal 1 3 4 3. Peon 2 4 7 13 4. Junior Clerk-cum-Typist 2 4 7 13 5. The Written Aptitude Test was conducted on 27.02.2011 and the short-listed candidates were called for interview on 15-16.03.2011. A duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and submitted its recommendations to the University, in its meeting held on 19.03.2011 the daily-wagers approached the Tribunal by filing Applications Nos. Junior Clerk-cum-Typist 2 4 7 13 5. The Written Aptitude Test was conducted on 27.02.2011 and the short-listed candidates were called for interview on 15-16.03.2011. A duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and submitted its recommendations to the University, in its meeting held on 19.03.2011 the daily-wagers approached the Tribunal by filing Applications Nos. 12 of 2011 to 25 of 2011, with two-fold prayers. The first prayer was to the effect that the action of the University in not regularising their services from the dates of their respective employments be declared as illegal and they be regularised in service from the dates of their appointments and paid regular wages. The second prayer was an interim one, praying for a restraint order against the University from making any appointments to the posts of Junior Clerk/Peon, pursuant to the advertisement and from terminating their services. It is significant to note that in the applications filed by the daily-wagers, they did not challenge the process of recruitment. Neither did they participate in the said process, but preferred to pursue the applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 17.03.2011, restraining the University from terminating the services of the daily-wagers and from filling up the advertised posts from the candidates selected on the basis of the regular selection process. Aggrieved by the above order, the University has approached this Court by filing the above-mentioned petitions. 6. On 25.03.2011, Notice was issued in the petitions and ad-interim relief, in terms of Paragraphs-7B and 7C was granted, staying the impugned order of the Tribunal and any further proceedings in the applications pending before it. After bi-parte hearing, this Court issued Rule by an order dated 05.09.2011, continuing the ad-interim relief and making it clear that if the persons selected through valid and legal recruitment proceedings by the University are appointed, the said appointments shall be subject to the final order passed by this Court. 7. The selected persons, therefore, approached this Court by preferring the petitions mentioned hereinabove, challenging the very same order of the Tribunal. During the pendency of the petitions, the selected persons have been granted appointment and the services of the daily-wagers have been terminated. 8. Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner University, has submitted that the University has conducted a legal and valid recruitment process by following due procedure, for the posts advertised. During the pendency of the petitions, the selected persons have been granted appointment and the services of the daily-wagers have been terminated. 8. Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner University, has submitted that the University has conducted a legal and valid recruitment process by following due procedure, for the posts advertised. The daily-wagers did not participate in the recruitment process for the said posts. They have approached the Tribunal only praying for the regularisation of their services but have not challenged the recruitment process. It is submitted that the recruitment process is now over and the duly selected candidates have already been given appointments, though subject to the final decision of the petitions. 9. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the applications before it, as no prayer was made in the applications against the recruitment process. It was, therefore, not open to the Tribunal to have stayed the entire recruitment process. It is contended that the daily-wagers did not participate in the recruitment process, though they had an opportunity to do so. Hence, they have no right to challenge the said process and seek the protection of their services. 10. On the above grounds, it is submitted that the petitions filed by the University be allowed. 11. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the selected candidates, has made submissions along similar lines and has further contended that the petitioners have been regularly selected through a legal and valid process of selection, which has not been challenged, till date. There is not even a whisper in the applications filed by the daily-wagers about any flaw in the process of appointment. The petitioners have now been granted regular appointment by the University and are serving on their respective posts. As no illegality or irregularity has been alleged in the selection process or in their appointments, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent daily-wagers, has submitted that the services of the daily-wagers have already been terminated during the pendency of the petitions by the University, pursuant to the appointment of the duly selected candidates. 12. Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent daily-wagers, has submitted that the services of the daily-wagers have already been terminated during the pendency of the petitions by the University, pursuant to the appointment of the duly selected candidates. He has submitted that the daily-wagers had been appointed by way of compassionate appointment and had put in long years of service, therefore, they ought to have been considered for regularisation on the posts in question. However, the services of the daily-wagers have now been terminated during the pendency of the petitions. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders have submitted that the State is a formal party and no submissions are required to be made on its behalf. 14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petitions, the contents of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the other documents on record. 15. There is no dispute regarding the fact that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the University for recruitment to the posts mentioned therein, the daily-wagers did not participate in the recruitment process. Instead, they filed applications before the Tribunal. It is significant to note even in those applications, no challenge has been raised by the daily-wagers to the recruitment process, at all. They have only prayed for the regularisation of their services. As an interim arrangement, they have made a prayer to retrain the University from proceeding further with the recruitment process. By the impugned interim order dated 17.03.2011, the Tribunal restrained the University from proceeding further with the process of recruitment and also directed that the services of the daily-wagers. 16. In the above context, the University has approached this Court, as have the regularly selected persons who have now been granted appointments pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. 17. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the recruitment process initiated by the University was never challenged before it by the daily-wagers, therefore, no restraint order could have been passed by it, staying the said process. 17. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the recruitment process initiated by the University was never challenged before it by the daily-wagers, therefore, no restraint order could have been passed by it, staying the said process. Without taking into consideration the aspect that a legal and valid process of recruitment has taken place and the selected candidates have been appointed after following the entire process of recruitment, including written tests and interview, the Tribunal has proceeded to stay the entire process, only on the basis of an interim prayer which is not supported by any substantive prayer. There could be no interim prayer regarding an issue which is not challenged substantiating in the first place. The Tribunal has failed to record any valid or cogent reasons, except for observing that the daily-wagers have been working on the said posts for a long time. The mere length of service of the daily-wagers can hardly be a ground for staying a legal and valid process of recruitment, especially when there was no challenge to it. 18. The daily-wagers had an opportunity to participate in the selection process but they deliberately chose not to do so. Instead, they filed applications before the Tribunal praying for regularisation on the same posts that had been advertised for regular selection. It may be true that the daily-wagers were appointed on compassionate grounds. However, when the University chooses to fill up the posts through regular selection and the daily-wagers also have an opportunity to participate, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by the University. 19. The impugned order of the Tribunal is devoid of any legal basis, insofar as the stay on the process of recruitment is concerned. In the absence of any challenge to the recruitment process, it was not within the scope and ambit of the Tribunal to have restrained the University from proceeding with the recruitment process. The Tribunal is also in error restraining the University from dispensing with the services of the daily-wagers in spite of the fact that the posts against which they were working had been filled up by a legal and valid recruitment process. 20. The selected persons have now been granted appointments on the various posts and the services of the daily-wagers have been terminated. This termination has not been challenged by them. 20. The selected persons have now been granted appointments on the various posts and the services of the daily-wagers have been terminated. This termination has not been challenged by them. Considering the above circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable in law and against the dicta of the Apex Court in the matter of public appointments, accountability and transparency. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 21. For the reasons sated hereinabove, the following order is passed: 22. The impugned order dated 17.03.2011, passed by the Tribunal in Applications Nos. 12 of 2011 to 25 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is at liberty to proceed with the said applications insofar as the main relief is concerned. 23. As a result of the above order, Special Civil Applications Nos. 3799 to 3801 of 2011 and 3803 to 3813 of 2011 are allowed. 24. Special Civil Applications Nos. 6047 to 6053 of 2011 filed by the selected persons also stand allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2011, passed by the Tribunal, is quashed and set aside. 25. Rule is made absolute, in all the above petitions. There shall be no orders as to costs.