ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Prayer in these writ petitions are diverse; may be overlapping in parts. 2. Noticing different and in some cases contradictory stand taken by different Universities in different petitions and, primarily for the reason that a decision which at the first instance must be taken by the authorities, still, the State as well as the Universities by filing affidavits in these writ petitions intended a decision from the Court, hearing of these writ petitions was deferred. In the aforesaid circumstances, on 03.04.2017 the following order was passed : "These writ petitions have been listed today by an order of the Court. 2. In different writ petitions, the respondent-Universities as well the State Government have taken different stand. One particular University, my judicial experience would say, has taken two different stands in two different cases, though the issue involved is same or similar. In all these writ petitions, primarily the issues involved are grant of promotion from the post of Lecturer to Reader or from the post of Reader to the post of Professor under different statutes namely, Time Bound Promotion, Career Advancement Scheme, Merit Promotion etc. Another issue involved in these writ petitions is, date of appointment of the teachers in the colleges which were taken over in the fourth phase or thereafter. There is report of the Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission which has dealt with this issue still, different Universities have reckoned different dates of appointment of the teachers in the colleges. In W.P.(S) No. 5675 of 2016 and two other cases, the issue involved is, whether the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is still operative and/or the petitioners can take benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme. In the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 451 of 2016], the Ranchi University has taken a stand that, "the University has no objection in treating the final date of appointment of the petitioner as 17.11.1980". In a litigation such a stand is not appreciated. A decision has to be taken by the authorities, in the light of the relevant rules and the orders, if any, passed by the Court. The learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State and the different Universities have opposed the stand taken by the petitioners in these writ petitions. It appears that, in the above situation, JPSC also finds itself in a fix. The learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State and the different Universities have opposed the stand taken by the petitioners in these writ petitions. It appears that, in the above situation, JPSC also finds itself in a fix. In my opinion, decisions on the above issues are required to be taken by the University/State, but for one reason or the other, it is being thrusted upon the Court. 3. In view of the diversity of issues and the divergent stands taken by the respondents, prima facie, I am of the opinion that a Committee shall be constituted comprising of Registrar of respective Universities, representative of Department of Higher Technical and Skill Development and one or two academicians, which may take a decision on different issues arising from different statutes, absorption, date of appointment of teachers in the colleges, consequential grant of pay-scale etc. and other incidental or similar matters. But, before taking a final decision in the matter, I think it appropriate to take response from the petitioners on constitution of such a Committee for formulating guidelines on the basis of which the respective Universities shall deal with the individual claims. 4. Accordingly, these writ petitions are adjourned by four weeks for taking response from the petitioners. 5. Post the matter on 01.05.2017." 3. The main reason for adjourning the matter for today was to grant an opportunity to the parties for "due reflection". 4. Broadly, the parties have agreed that a Committee may be constituted consisting of the representative from the State Government and representatives from each Universities. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned State counsel on instructions from the Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, affirms the willingness of the State for constitution of such a Committee. 5. Ordered accordingly. 6. One of the contentious issues raised during the course of argument was applicability of different Statutes even after enforcement of 1995 Statutes and the Career Advancement Scheme, 2008. 5. Ordered accordingly. 6. One of the contentious issues raised during the course of argument was applicability of different Statutes even after enforcement of 1995 Statutes and the Career Advancement Scheme, 2008. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is, that the "Statute for placement of Lecturers to the post of Lecturers in the Senior pay-scale and Statute for promotion of Lecturers in the Senior pay-scale to the post of Readers and for placement of the Lecturers in the Senior pay-scale to the post of Lecturers in the Selection Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme" as approved by the Chancellor vide letter No. BSU20/952132/GS(1) dated 23.09.1995 and the "Statute for promotion of Lecturers in the Senior pay-scale (Rs. 3000-5000) to the posts of Readers in the pay-scale of 3700-5700 and placement of Lecturers in the Senior Scale of pay to the post of Lecturers in the Selection Grade (3700-5700)" as approved by the Chancellor vide letter dated 23.09.1995 do not apply in cases for promotion to the post of Professor from the post of Reader. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners who were appointed in the Minority Colleges submits that these Statutes would not apply to the deficit-grant Minority Institutions/Colleges. The contention raised on behalf of the learned counsels appearing for the Universities is, that after the aforesaid Statutes came into force on 23.09.1995 all other existing statutes stood superseded and no promotion in terms of the previous Time Bound and Merit Promotion Statues can be granted. The respondent-State also seems to adopt the same line of agreement. 7. Another argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is, that even after the "Statute for placement of Lecturers to the post of Lecturer in the Senior Scale and for promotion of Lecturer in the Senior Scale to the post of Lecturer in the Selection Grade/Reader and promotion of Reader to the post of University Professor of University Departments, Constituent Colleges and Affiliated College including Religious and Linguistic Minority College" commonly called CAS came into existence by Notification dated 26.06.2008 still, the previous Time Bound Promotion Scheme as well as Merit Promotion Scheme continues, atleast for promotion to the post of Professor shall continue. Contention of Dr. Contention of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the University is that this Notification dated 26.06.2008 refers only to previous Statues assented to by the Chancellor both notified vide letters dated 23.09.1995, for after the Hon'ble Chancellor assented to the aforesaid Notification the previous Time Bound Promotion Scheme and Merit Promotion Scheme all stood superseded. 8. In the first place, I shall take up the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) which has been made effective w.e.f. 27.07.1998. 9. The scheme of CAS notified vide Notification dated 26.06.2008 reflects that CAS has been thought of as one single scheme covering all kinds of promotions; promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Lecturer Senior Scale, promotion of Lecturer Senior Scale to Lecturer Selection Grade, promotion of Lecturer Selection Scale to the rank of Reader and promotion of Reader to the rank of Professor. This is an exhaustive all encompassing scheme. In my opinion, it covers all aspects of promotion in University Departments, Constituent Colleges, Affiliated College as also the Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges. Under Clause 10 of CAS, it is provided that previous service, without any break as Lecturer or equivalent, in a University College, National Laboratory or other scientific organizations of State/Central Government e.g. SCIR, ICAR, DRADD, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR shall be counted for placement of Lecturer in Senior Scale/Selection Grade subject to the following conditions :- (1) The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of Lecturer. (2) The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer. (3) The candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channels. (4) The concerned Lecturer possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Lecturer. (5) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government/Central Government/Institution's regulations. (6) The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. 10. Another relevant provision is for counting of ad-hoc service. It has been provided that ad-hoc service for more than one year duration and if the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc service without any break, shall be taken into consideration. 10. Another relevant provision is for counting of ad-hoc service. It has been provided that ad-hoc service for more than one year duration and if the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc service without any break, shall be taken into consideration. Only limitation is that the benefit of past service shall not be granted to ad-hoc/temporary teachers who at the time of their selection/absorption to the permanent posts were not holding the post in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act/Statutes/Rules and Regulations. 11. The Career Advancement Scheme puts an embargo on promotion to a teaching post in the institutions; Constituent Colleges, Affiliated Colleges including, Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges, if qualifications for promotion are not fulfilled. Requirement for grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) is provided under Clause 1.2.0. It provides 4 years of service for the Lecturers with Ph.D, 5 years with M.Phil and 6 years for other Lecturers, however, the eligibility for Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader is minimum 5 years of service as Lecturer (Senior Scale). For grant of grades of Reader and above, minimum eligibility is Ph.D degree. A Lecturer who does not possess Ph.D degree is granted promotion only to the level of Lecturer (Selection Grade). For promotion in the grade of Professor minimum 8 years of service as Reader is the condition. Clause 1.6 provides that in the Degree Colleges including, Religious Linguistic Minority Colleges in which 5th UGC pay-scale has been implemented, promotion under CAS shall be considered w.e.f. 27.07.1998. 12. A list of eligible candidates shall be forwarded by the Universities to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission under Clause 1.9.0, which shall send its recommendations within 6 months. Conditions for promotion of Lecturer in the rank of Lecturer (Senior Scale) is prescribed under Clause 2, and for promotion of Lecturer (Senior Scale) as Lecturer (Selection Grade) are provided under Clause 3 of the CAS. These conditions are similar to the conditions provided under the Statute of 1995, with relaxation in the period of continuous service. For example, under 1995 Statue for promotion in the Senior pay-scale 8 years of continuous service after regular appointment against sanctioned post is a condition whereas, under CAS period of continuous service has been reduced to 6 years for non Ph.D/M.Phil Lecturers. For example, under 1995 Statue for promotion in the Senior pay-scale 8 years of continuous service after regular appointment against sanctioned post is a condition whereas, under CAS period of continuous service has been reduced to 6 years for non Ph.D/M.Phil Lecturers. Similarly, under CAS 5 years' continuous service is a requirement for placement in the rank of Lecturer (Selection Grade) whereas, under 1995 Statute it was 8 years of service in the Senior Scale. Criteria for placement of Lecturers in the Senior Pay-scale to the post of Reader was similar to the criteria for grant of Selection Grade, under 1995 Statute. 13. Contention of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners who are serving under Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges, is that the Statute for Time-Bound Promotion which was approved by the Chancellor on 14.09.1992 is not superseded by any of the two 1995 Statutes, either expressly or impliedly. It is contended that 1995 Statutes applied only to the Lecturers serving in University Department or in a Degree College maintained by the University. 14. It is a matter of record that "Statutes for Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers to the post of Readers and for Readers to the post of University Professors" received approval of the Chancellor vide letter dated 24.12.1986. Clause 1 of the subject Statute refers to a Lecturer serving in a University Department or in a Degree College managed and maintained by the University. Except this, there is no other Statute which regulates Time Bound Promotion of Lecturers working under affiliated Colleges and there was no separate law, at that time, regulating promotions of the Lecturers working in Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges. The Statute for Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges including, Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges received approval of the Chancellor on 14.09.1992. Both these Statutes came into force from 01.02.1985. Both are verbatim same and contain identical conditions for promotions (Statute 2280 for affiliated and Statute 4032 for University Colleges). Statute for Time-Bound Promotion 4032 has been expressly superseded by 1995 Statute, however, the Statute 2280 relating to affiliated colleges including, Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges has not been expressly superseded by 1995 Statute 2132. 15. Both are verbatim same and contain identical conditions for promotions (Statute 2280 for affiliated and Statute 4032 for University Colleges). Statute for Time-Bound Promotion 4032 has been expressly superseded by 1995 Statute, however, the Statute 2280 relating to affiliated colleges including, Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges has not been expressly superseded by 1995 Statute 2132. 15. The entire theory under law of implied repeals is that there is no need for later enactment to say in express terms that an earlier enactment has been repealed by using any particular set of words but, that if the legislative intent to supersede earlier law is manifested by the enactment of provisions as to effect such super session, then there is in law a repeal notwithstanding the absence of word "repeal" in the later Statute [refer "State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Company" AIR 1964 SC 1284 ]. However, there may be a case in which by framing new rules while a part of the old rules were not expressly repealed, still, it has been held that the new rules would by necessary implications repeal the left-out part also [refer "Swastik Ruber Products ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the city of Poona" (1981) 4 SCC 219 ]. 16. For the present, framing of two separate, but identical Statutes would give a definite impression that only for the convenience, Statute for Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges was brought on statute-book in the year, 1992 which was a reproduction of 1986 Statute regulating Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers. In the circumstances, 1995 Statute for promotion of Lecturers to the post of Readers, though does not expressly repeal Statute 2280 for Time-Bound Promotion of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges, by necessary implication repeals Statute 2280, in part. While accepting the plea raised on behalf of the Lecturers of Minority institutions and at the same time, holding that there shall not be any Time-Bound Promotion for the University Lecturers or Lecturers in Degree Colleges, a complete irreconcilable situation would be invited. 17. While accepting the plea raised on behalf of the Lecturers of Minority institutions and at the same time, holding that there shall not be any Time-Bound Promotion for the University Lecturers or Lecturers in Degree Colleges, a complete irreconcilable situation would be invited. 17. Generally, the expression "notwithstanding anything to the contrary" is used to give primacy to the provision in relation to other existing provision in law and while "deemed repeal" of another enactment is not inferred, in the present scenario the Time Bound Promotion Scheme must be deemed to have been replaced by 1995 Statutes in so far as, these Statutes referred to promotion of Lecturer to the post of Reader. However, promotion to the post of Professor shall be regulated under the old Statutes till 27.07.1998. There was no provision for Time-Bound Promotion to the post of Professor in 1995 Statutes. This fact finds echoed in letter dated 16.03.2013 by Special Secretary to the Governor. On introduction of 1995 Statutes, it has to be held that Time-Bound Promotion to the post of Professor after 23.09.1995 also shall be granted under the old statute, but only till 27.07.1998. Similar would be the rational for holding that 2008 CAS superseding all previous Statutes, though it specifically refers only to 1995 Statutes (2132 & 2133). 18. The contention that 2008 CAS is an invalid piece of legislation, for it has been made applicable from a retrospective date is liable to be rejected. Merely, because the law made has been given retrospective effect, the same does not render it invalid. Though, on examination of the scheme of the enactment it may be held that CAS cannot be given a retrospective effect, but, for this reason, CAS itself cannot be held invalid. Conditions for promotions of Readers as Professors under 1995 Statute are contained under Clause 4 which reads: "The promotion will depend on consideration and assessment of the work done by the teacher, such as publication of research papers, books, reviews and curriculum development, teaching aids, innovation in teaching methods, equipment development etc. presented by the individual teacher which shall be referred to at least two referees in the subject/discipline concerned". presented by the individual teacher which shall be referred to at least two referees in the subject/discipline concerned". In the existing CAS the following documents are placed before the Scrutiny Committee for examining the eligibility for promotion as Reader; (a) Self Appraisal Report (required), (b) research contribution/books/articles published, (c) any other academic contributions, preferably the best three written contributions of the teacher, (d) seminars, conferences attended, (e) contribution to teaching/academic environment/institutional corporate life, and (f) extension and field outreach activities. A scrutiny of the conditions under 1995 Statute and CAS would reveal that no new criteria has been imposed for promotion to the post of Reader under CAS. Without referring in detail, it is recorded that no new conditions for promotion to the post of Professor has been envisaged under CAS. The requirement of participation in oriented/refresher course/summer institute is confined to promotion of Lecturers to Lecturer (Senior-Scale) and Lecturer (Senior-Scale) to Lecturer (Selection-Grade), which also is not a new condition under CAS. In the above facts, if CAS has been made applicable with effect from 27.06.1998, no prejudice would be caused to any Lecturer aspiring promotion in higher ranks. In so far as, Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges are concerned, there is no reason why CAS shall not be made applicable to these Institutions. One cannot insist Time-Bound Promotion as a matter of right. Grant or refusal of promotion falls exclusively within the domain of the Executive and Legislature. There is no challenge to the applicability of CAS notified on 26.06.2008, which is made applicable to Religious and Linguistic Minority Colleges. In short, CAS is a composite scheme for promotion at various levels under one roof. 19. Another issue which was debated during the course of hearing was extent of the control of the State Government in the matters of appointment, promotion, pay-scale etc. Section 35 of Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Universities Act) provided that no post for appointment shall be created by the University or any Colleges or any Affiliated Colleges without prior sanction of the State Government. Under Section 41 the University is required to sent the drafts of all proposed Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules to the Government of Jharkhand for consideration. Budget of the University is approved by the State Government. Under Section 41 the University is required to sent the drafts of all proposed Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules to the Government of Jharkhand for consideration. Budget of the University is approved by the State Government. Under Section 48 the State Government has powers to return budget to the University with such modifications as it may deem fit and the University is required to act in conformity with such modifications and approved budget. Section 48 (3) provides that no expenditure shall be incurred by the University unless such an expenditure has become part of the budget as finally approved by subsection 1 or 2. The State Government may cause the accounts of the University or any College to be audited under Section 54 and issue direction for compliance to the University or the College concerned. These provisions would require the University or the College to make appointments in terms of the University Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The University or the College has to ensure compliance of UGC regulations and to follow the norms and conditions for the appointment as fixed by the Academic Regulator. In the event, the State Government finds that the University or College has failed to ensure compliance of the extant rules, it may interfere with the decision of the University by declining to approve its recommendations. In the above circumstances, contention that area of activities within the Universities Act is a forbidden territory for the State Government, is liable to be rejected. 20. An issue which also cropped up is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the authorities. Without expressing any opinion on this issue, for this would depend on the facts of each case, it is clarified that mere recommendation by the University shall not make a teacher entitled for grant of promotion in terms of the extant Statues. In so far as, the date of substantive appointment is concerned, the date fixed by the Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal Commission shall be final and conclusive except, in cases which were left open in "State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K Mahasangh and Others" reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129 . It is also clarified that if a candidate has approached the Hon'ble S. B. Sinha Commission, the date of substantive appointment/absorption as held by the Hon'ble Commission in that event shall be taken as final. It is also clarified that if a candidate has approached the Hon'ble S. B. Sinha Commission, the date of substantive appointment/absorption as held by the Hon'ble Commission in that event shall be taken as final. Paragraph no. 73 of the "Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh" case is extracted below : 73. "In view of this judgment and the directions made herein to the university to take a final decision based on the report of the Enquiry Commission, all the applications for impleadment as parties and objections filed to the enquiry report are rejected. It is for the university to take a final decision concerning the individual employees. For the same reason, no further orders are required on the interlocutory applications seeking certain directions pending the appeal and for modification of earlier orders made. Other interlocutory applications also need no further directions or orders. They all stand disposed of. Conclusions : 1. The judgment of the High Court, to the extent of the interpretation placed by it on the provisions of Section 4(1)(14) and Section 35 with the directions issued in paras 24 to 26 therein, is hereby confirmed for the reasons recorded by us above. 2. The report of the Commission of Enquiry of Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal (Retired), is accepted and all objections filed against the said report are rejected. 3. The members of the staff in various affiliated colleges identified and named in List (i) being appointees against the sanctioned posts shall be absorbed and formal order to that effect shall be issued by the universities concerned. 4. The universities shall take a decision under Section 4(1)(14) of the Act in the matter of absorption of appointees named in List (ii) of the report of the Commission, being appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State up to the cutoff date in accordance with the decision of the State Government conveyed in its letter dated 19-8-1986 followed by letters dated 25-8-1986 and 12-6-1987. In considering the question of absorption of appointees named in List (ii) of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the universities concerned shall rely on the contents of the report of the Enquiry Commission and the present judgment of this Court. 5. In considering the question of absorption of appointees named in List (ii) of the report of the Enquiry Commission, the universities concerned shall rely on the contents of the report of the Enquiry Commission and the present judgment of this Court. 5. The appointees mentioned in List (iii), being the appointees against posts for which recommendations were sent by the universities to the State Government after the cutoff date or those working against posts for which no recommendations were sent for approval of the State Government, have no right of being considered for absorption - whatever may be the fortuitous circumstances or otherwise in the matter of not sending recommendations for sanction in their cases. The negative report of the Enquiry Commission with regard to List (iii) is accepted and the universities are directed to exclude all such appointees named in List (iii) from consideration for absorption. 6. A large number of objections to the report of the Enquiry Commission filed before us by associations of employees and individuals pertain to the alleged lack of prescribed qualifications for the posts on which they are working. All those objectors have not been recommended for absorption in the report of the Enquiry Commission. Decision in individual cases, with due regard to the qualification of each employee and corresponding statute applicable at the relevant time prescribing qualifications, if any, for the teaching and non-teaching posts, shall be taken by the universities based on the findings in the report of Justice Agrawal Commission and in the light of the legal position explained above." 21. The Committee shall formulate the broad guidelines within four months and individual cases shall be decided by the Universities within three months thereafter. The Universities shall provide an opportunity to all the claimants for furnishing necessary documents, for which a notice shall be issued by the Universities. 22. All writ petitions in this batch stand disposed of. W.P.(S) No. 4846 of 2007 23. The petitioner no. 1 is claiming shifting of his date of absorption from 30.04.1986 to 06.01.1981 and the petitioner no. 2 is claiming shifting of his date of absorption from 30.04.1986 to 10.07.1978. The petitioners have claimed that they were appointed on 06.01.1981 and 10.07.1978 respectively, however, it is an admitted position that the post on which the petitioners were appointed were sanctioned only on 14.08.1981. 2 is claiming shifting of his date of absorption from 30.04.1986 to 10.07.1978. The petitioners have claimed that they were appointed on 06.01.1981 and 10.07.1978 respectively, however, it is an admitted position that the post on which the petitioners were appointed were sanctioned only on 14.08.1981. There is no recommendation for permanent appointment of the petitioners on the posts and while so, in terms of the Government's decision which has been uniformly applied to all the teachers, the date of absorption has been fixed as 30.04.1986. The letter, issued by the Government of Jharkhand by which provisional pay in UGC scale was fixed, has rightly fixed the petitioners' date of substantive appointment as 30.04.1986. On this count, I find no infirmity, however, insofar as, prayers for grant of promotions to the post of Reader and Professor are concerned, the claim of the petitioners shall be dealt in the light of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3375 of 2016 and batch cases. 24. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4846 of 2007 stands disposed of. W.P.(S) No. 2977 of 2010: 25. By filing supplementary affidavit dated 20.04.2017, the petitioner insist that this writ-petition may be decided on merits. 26. Challenge in the writ-petition is to letter dated 17.03.2008 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission by which it has declined to accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee of Vinoba Bhave University for promotion from the post of Reader to the post of University Professor. The ground taken is that the petitioner did not attain the eligibility as on 22.09.1995. Applicability of the Statutes which were assented to by the Chancellor on 23.09.1995 has been decided by the order passed in the batch cases and, therefore, in my opinion, the issue involved here requires to be examined by the University in the light of directions issued in W.P.(S) No. 3375 of 2016 and batch cases. 27. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2977 of 2010 stands disposed of. 28. I.A. Nos. 27. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2977 of 2010 stands disposed of. 28. I.A. Nos. 6340 of 2015 and 3560 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No. 4846 of 2007, I.A. No. 178 of 2014 in W.P.(S) No. 4657 of 2009, I.A. No. 6464 of 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 2977 of 2010, I.A. No. 3997 of 2014 in W.P.(S) No. 2643 of 2011, I.A. No. 5444 of 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 2767 of 2014, I.A. No. 838 of 2017 in W.P.(S) 5675 of 2016, I.A. No. 837 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No. 5676 of 2016 and I.A. No. 836 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No. 5678 of 2016 also stand disposed of.