JUDGMENT : The petitioner asserts that she was working as a Computer Operator-cum-Programme (COCP) at the Nodal Centre for Kerala in the Cochin University of Science and Technology under the aegis of the National Manpower Information System, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Union of India from 09.07.1999 to 01.04.2012. She has filed this writ petition impugning Exhibits P12 and P13 orders of the first respondent University terminating her service as COCP on the ground that the Nodal Centre itself was abolished. 2. The petitioner's contention is that Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture had established a National Manpower Information System (NMIS) in order to obtain and preserve man power information on a continuing basis specifically in the area of Science and Technology. She says that NMIS comprises of an Institute of Applied Manpower Research (IAMR) as the lead centre, and Manpower Information Cell in the Ministry of Education and 27 Nodal Centres in selected higher Institutes of Engineering and Technology, apart from the State Directorates of Technical Education, who have the option to be part of the same. The petitioner asserts that the first respondent University was selected by the Government in the year 1983 to be one of such Nodal Centres situated in Kerala. According to the petitioner, Government of India had granted permission for creation of the post of COCP in the year 1987, the expenditure for which is to be made by each centre. She has produced the relevant order of the Government of India in this regard as Exhibit P2. She says that the post was thus created and that she was appointed as such with effect from 09.07.1999 as per Exhibit P8 after undergoing the process of interview and on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted by the first respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, even though in Exhibit P8 her post has been shown to be temporary and co-terminus with the post of Project Officer, as per the various orders of the Ministry of Education and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), it is ineluctable that the post is permanent in nature to be maintained with the assistance of the third respondent Ministry. She has produced Exhibits P3 to P6 orders in support of her above contention. She has produced Exhibits P3 to P6 orders in support of her above contention. These documents show that the salary and other allowances for various posts under the Nodal Centres are to reimbursed to the University by the third respondent Ministry and that, as per the original scheme, there would have been no financial commitment to the University. It on these allegations that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging her termination. 4. I have heard Sri. Subhas Chand S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the third respondent. 5. The pleadings on record would show that even though as per the original scheme the expenses for the staff and other infrastructure of the Nodal Centre were to be defrayed and reimbursed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, this was not being done. This led to a situation where the University was burdened with large amounts of expenditure which it had to spend from non-plan sector funds. Even though the NMIS was supervised and funded by the AICTE and even though as per Exhibit P11 letter it had offered to release the funds under the non-plan head, it transpires that the University, which had been suffering the expenses in anticipation of the reimbursement, did not obtain such funds, forcing it to consider closure of the Nodal Centre. It was in such circumstances that it issued Exhibit P12 order on the basis of the recommendations of a committee constituted by the University to find the means and methods to trim the expenditure under the non-plan sector. 6. Exhibit P12 order says that the University had been advancing funds to the Nodal Centre anticipating reimbursement from the Ministry of Human Resource Development and for the reason that such amounts were not received, it was constrained to stop funding of the said centre. The dues from the AICTE as on the date of Exhibit P12 is shown to be Rs.38 lakhs. The University, therefore, proceeded to stop functioning of the Nodal Centre and ordered that the staff working therein to be reverted to their parent department. Unfortunately, the petitioner, who was treated only as a temporary staff and who was not on deputation, was directed by Exhibit P13 order to be terminated from service. She has thus been out of service with effect from 01.04.2012. 7. Unfortunately, the petitioner, who was treated only as a temporary staff and who was not on deputation, was directed by Exhibit P13 order to be terminated from service. She has thus been out of service with effect from 01.04.2012. 7. Normally, in the circumstances noticed above, the petitioner would not have had any claim for regularisation, especially in view of the statement contained in Exhibit P12 order of the first respondent University. 8. However, while so, the Ministry of Human Resource Development decided to form a committee called 'Bhat Committee' to identify the staff of the erstwhile Nodal Centres to be offered regularisation on certain terms. This committee considered the relevant aspects relating to the various Nodal Centres around the country and recommended certain persons for absorption into regular service. They decided that those employees who had more than five years of uninterrupted service in any of the four sanctioned project posts will be recommended for absorption in the respective institutions where the Nodal Centre existed. The petitioner says that she was recommended by the Bhat Committee and that she was the only person so recommended from Kerala. The petitioner has produced Exhibits P14 and P15, which are the minutes and recommendations of the Bhat Committee, in support of her assertion. 9. It is obvious that the report of the Bhat Committee is intended to benefit those employees in the erstwhile Nodal Centres. The Committee had recommended certain persons for regularisation in the institute, where the Nodal Centres earlier existed, if such persons satisfy the criteria of having worked more than five years in one of the sanctioned posts. The petitioner concededly worked uninterruptedly from 09.07.1999 until 31.03.2012, when Exhibit P12 order was issued. She worked as a COCP, which was a sanctioned post. She was, therefore, fully entitled to the benefits under Exhibits P14 and P15 recommendations. She is, therefore, justified in making a prayer for her regularisation based on these recommendations and I cannot find fault with her for having done so. 10. However, since the recommendations in Exhibits P14 and P15 were not implemented and because there were objections against the manner in which it was ordered to be implemented from the various institutes, where the Nodal Centers had previously existed, the Ministry of Human Resource Development again called a meeting of the stake holders and considered ways and methods to implement the recommendations. It was decided in the said meeting to grant the employees age relaxation for appointment to the vacant posts existing in the host institutes so as to enable their consideration for absorption and in case such absorption was not possible for other reasons, it was recommended that supernumerary posts be created. This committee also recommended that if any person mentioned in Exhibits P14 and P15, could not be absorbed by the host institutes or in an institute under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, they should be engaged under the new scheme under the IAMR. The report of the second committee has been produced as Exhibit P16. 11. The petitioner contends that in spite of Exhibits P14 to P16, her case has never been considered by any of the authorities and that she has been left with no employment after 01.04.2012. She says that the action of the respondents in not absorbing her in spite of the recommendations is illegal and unlawful. 12. I find substantial force in the submission of the petitioner especially in view of the affirmative recommendations contained in Exhibits P14 to P16. Since the first respondent University has already said that they are unable to absorb the petitioner on account of the huge amounts due from the AICTE, it will be certainly upon the third respondent to consider her case appropriately in terms of the recommendations contained in Exhibits P14 to P16. The obligation is particularly more on the third respondent, since, in Exhibit P16, the second committee had said that if an employee cannot be absorbed into the host institute, he/she will have to be absorbed into an institute under the Ministry of Human Resource Development. 13. It is indisputable that the Nodal centers were established as a component of NMIS under a scheme formulated by the third respondent. The various documents on record would clearly indicate that the funds necessary for the salary and allowance of the persons appointed against sanctioned posts were to be bone by the AICTE or Ministry of Human Resource Development. The petitioner took employment under the Nodal Centre being guided by the notification published by the University and being under the bona fide impression that it was a scheme funded by the Union of India. The petitioner took employment under the Nodal Centre being guided by the notification published by the University and being under the bona fide impression that it was a scheme funded by the Union of India. She has worked for more than twelve years as a COCP and it will be very harsh and inequitable that she be denied employment solely because the first respondent University has not reimbursed the expenses incurred by it. 14. In any event of the matter, since specific recommendations have been made by the Bhat Committee in Exhibits P14 and P15 to absorb the petitioner and Exhibit P16 report of the second committee held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Ministry of Human Resource Development directs absorption of the employees either in the host institutes or in an institute under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, it is necessary and imperative that the claim of the petitioner be considered in its true perspective adverting to the various recommendations by the competent authority. 15. I cannot but notice the legitimate difficulty of the first respondent University in being unable to appoint the petitioner in terms of Exhibits P14 to P16 recommendations and, therefore, cannot quash Exhibits P12 and P13 orders as prayed for by the petitioner. This is because I am of the view that the burden of absorption of the petitioner to a suitable post is more with the third respondent or the AICTE than the first respondent, particularly because the first respondent has already suffered huge amounts due to the operation of the Nodal Centre, hence inequitable to issue orders against them. However, that does not mean that the petitioner is left without any remedy. 16. A survey of the pleadings guide me to conclude inescapably that the most appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's claim would be the Secretary of the third respondent Ministry. This is because all the above mentioned recommendations make it obligatory on the third respondent to consider the claims of persons like the petitioner for absorption or re-employment. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C)No.395/2016 dated 17.01.2017 wherein the said Court has already directed that persons like the petitioner be absorbed or appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development even by creation of supernumerary posts in the host institutes. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C)No.395/2016 dated 17.01.2017 wherein the said Court has already directed that persons like the petitioner be absorbed or appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development even by creation of supernumerary posts in the host institutes. Even though I notice the directions of the Gauhati High Court to be peremptory, I deem it appropriate that instead of issuing such orders, I grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent with a representation detailing her claims so that it can be considered by the competent authority in a suitable manner. In such circumstances, I order this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Secretary of the third respondent Ministry by making an appropriate representation detailing all her claims on the strength of Exhibits P14 to P16 recommendations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is received by the competent Secretary of the third respondent Ministry within the time granted herein, the same shall be considered by the Secretary in its true perspective and taking into account the specific and singular recommendations contained in Exhibits P14 to P16 and to issue orders thereon as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date on which such representation is received by him/her.