JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The University, is in appeal against the judgment dated 18.06.2011, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents (petitioners therein), was allowed and impugned Annexure-P-9, i.e. office order dated 18.08.2010, was quashed. 2. Primarily question involved for adjudication in the instant appeal is:- Whether the university, which as per Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture/ ICAR's circulars and as per its own pleadings in the writ petition, being bound by all directions/circulars/clarifications issued by ICAR in respect of pay scales/service conditions of its teachers, could have issued a Notification dated 18.12.2001, in complete variance to the directions of ICAR while professing to abide by the same. And whether based on such Notification issued by the University, could it have issued another bizarre Notification dated 17.01.2002, when these two Notifications resulted in absolute unjust enrichment of the petitioners and their undue promotions as Professors; and whether it was open for the University in the facts and circumstances of the case to correct its mistakes by issuing Notification dated 11.08.2010, in line with ICAR clarifications/circulars and to withdraw wrong benefits given to the petitioners by impugned order dated 18.08.2010, after realizing the mistakes committed by it, pointed out by Auditor General of Himachal Pradesh. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as they were in the writ petition. The factual position of the case along with our observations is being given hereinafter:- 2(i) Position in University Prior to 1999:- 2(i)(a) A Career Advancement Scheme of ICAR as well as a Personal Promotion Scheme (PPS) of the University, were in vogue in university, applicable inter alia to the writ petitioners. 2(i)(b) The teachers were availing the benefits of Personal Promotion Scheme as well as Career Advancement Scheme by exercising options thereunder. To quote an example, one Dr. Shyam Verma/ petitioner No.1, availed the benefit of CAS (notified on 03.08.1989, as amended from time to time) and was promoted vide order dated 11.11.1998, from the post of Assistant Plant Breeder (Asstt. Prof.) to Plant Breeder (Associate Prof.) in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996. All petitioners in the similar manner by availing the benefit of CAS, had been promoted as Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 before 03.03.1999. Prof.) to Plant Breeder (Associate Prof.) in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996. All petitioners in the similar manner by availing the benefit of CAS, had been promoted as Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 before 03.03.1999. 2(ii) Position in 1999:- 2(ii) (a) A letter dated 03.03.1999, was circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Research and Education, in respect of 'revision of pay scales of teachers in Agriculture Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission'. Some of the contents of letter, which are relevant to the controversy, are being reproduced hereinafter:- ". ...it has now been decided that the revised scales as extended to ICAR Scientists may be extended to the corresponding teaching posts in the Central Agriculture University, Imphal and the State Agriculture Universities. The revised pay scales, incentives for Degrees, and Career Advancement Scheme, extended to CAU and SAUs, will be as detailed in this letter .." " 6. It is requested that necessary action may please be taken to revise the pay scales of the teachers of the State Agriculture Universities and Central Agriculture University, Imphal, as per the conditions laid down in the instant letter and the Regulations to be framed by the ICAR." "7. Further clarification, if any, in the implementation of the scheme may be sought from the ICAR." "8. The revision of pay scales is further subject to the following conditions:- (i) The pay scales and the service conditions of SAUs/CAU personnel, will be determined only by ICAR and that decisions taken by UGC in this regard will not be applicable unless they are accepted by the ICAR." 2(ii)(b) In view of above extracted directions, the matter in respect of pay scales of teachers in State Agriculture Universities (SAUs) was to be governed by Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), therefore, the conditions imposed in the above circular, had to be accepted and were formally also accepted by the university, by issuing its own Notification dated 03.06.1999. This Notification was issued under reference and in accordance with letter dated 03.03.1999, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, as extracted above. 2(ii)(c) ICAR, issued another letter on 16.04.1999, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Vice Chancellors of SAUs/CAU. This Notification was issued under reference and in accordance with letter dated 03.03.1999, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, as extracted above. 2(ii)(c) ICAR, issued another letter on 16.04.1999, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Vice Chancellors of SAUs/CAU. The subject matter of the communication was, 'revision of pay scales for the teachers and officers of SAUs, following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission.' The issuance of letter dated 16.04.1999, was necessitated, as many State Governments had sought certain clarifications with respect to the earlier ICAR letter dated 03.03.1999. Following clarifications inter-alia others were issued by ICAR vide letter dated 16.04.1999:- 1. Agriculture Education comes within the purview of Department of Agriculture Research and Education. 2. The grants-in-aid provided by Government of India (DARE) for agriculture education are processed for disbursements to State Agriculture Universities (SAUs) by ICAR. 3(i) ICAR, plays the role for Agriculture Universities, which UGC plays for general Universities. 3(ii) The revision of pay scales of the teachers of the State Agriculture Universities (SAUs), has, therefore, to be processed by ICAR. 3(iii) While approving the proposal of the council for revision of the pay scales of teachers of SAUs, the Ministry of Finance has stipulated that the pay scales and service conditions of SAUs/CAUs personnel will be determined only by ICAR and the decision taken by the UGC in this regard will not be applicable unless the same is accepted by ICAR. 4. This clarification was issued as in the past some of the Agriculture Universities had made certain deviations in the pay scales and service conditions approved by the Council during Fourth Pay Commission. 5. In so far as revision of pay scales in Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scales notified vide letter No. 1(15)/98-per. IV dated 3.3.99, issued by Director, DARE had the approval of the Council. However, for other service conditions such as Carrier Advancement Schemes etc., the SAUs were required to follow guidelines to be approved by the council. 2(ii)(d) Following the mandate of the above clarification dated 16.04.1999, the university, issued its own letter of compliance to it. By following the ICAR directions as contained in above referred circulars, the PPS Scheme of university, which was in vogue, till that time was admittedly abolished. 2(ii)(d) Following the mandate of the above clarification dated 16.04.1999, the university, issued its own letter of compliance to it. By following the ICAR directions as contained in above referred circulars, the PPS Scheme of university, which was in vogue, till that time was admittedly abolished. 2(iii) Position in University as on 18.12.2000:- 2(iii)(a) ICAR, had circulated a Career Advancement Scheme for Scientists under: (i) ICAR and; (ii) SAUs and CAUs, vide letter dated 19.07.2000. 2(iii)(b) The University, which was even otherwise bound to adopt and implement the CAS, circulated by ICAR and also bound to abolish its own earlier prevalent, Personal Promotion Scheme (PPS), issued a formal Notification in this regard on 18.12.2000. In terms of this Notification, the Board of Management of the University in its 70th meeting held on 01.11.2000, approved the CAS, for the teachers of the university w.e.f. 01.01.1996, by substituting the existing Personal Promotion Scheme/CAS Scheme. 2(iii)(c) The CAS Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as circulated by the ICAR and as formally adopted by the university, had following as clause 6.4 :- "6.4 Eligibility for career advancement of Associate Professor/equivalent (directly as well as promoted) as Professor/equivalent. An Associate Professor/equivalent (directly recruitment as well as promoted) shall be eligible for promotion as Professor/equivalent in the scale of Rs. 16400/450-20900-500-22400, if he/she has: (i) Obtained a Ph. D. degree. (ii) Completed 8 years service as Associate Professor (directly recruited as well as promoted) provided that the requirement of 8 years service will be relaxed if the total service as Asstt. Prof./Asstt. Prof. Senior Scale/Asstt. Prof. Selection Grade/Assoc. Prof. Is not less than 17 years. Provided further that at least 5 years of service should have been rendered as Assoc. Prof. Equivalent in HPKV. .." 2(iii)(d) Thus, as per above Scheme, the eligibility for Career Advancement as Professor, inter alia, was : (i) Either 8 years of service as Associate Professor; (ii) or total 17 years of service, necessarily including 5 years of service, as Associate Professor. 2(iv) Clarification issued by ICAR on 19.04.2001: 2(iv)(a) Many ICAR Institutions sought clarification from ICAR, regarding CAS Scheme (2000) of ICAR. The ICAR issued clarifications vide its letter dated 19.04.2001, as under:- "Many ICAR Instts. and SAUs have been seeking clarification on the applicability of the above point. 2(iv) Clarification issued by ICAR on 19.04.2001: 2(iv)(a) Many ICAR Institutions sought clarification from ICAR, regarding CAS Scheme (2000) of ICAR. The ICAR issued clarifications vide its letter dated 19.04.2001, as under:- "Many ICAR Instts. and SAUs have been seeking clarification on the applicability of the above point. The matter has been examined in the Council and it has been observed that UGC vide its letter number F.2-3/2000 (PS) dated 8th June, 2000 and letter number F.3-1/94 (PS-6) dated 5th October, 2000, has clarified that a Lecturer who is in Sr. Scale with a total of 9 years service (with Ph.D)/10 years service (with M. Phil)/11 years service will become eligible for Lecturer (Sel. Grade)/Reader (Promotion) without requiring the stipulated 5 years service as Lecturer (Sr. Scale) and 8 years service as Reader in the scale of 3700-5700 (revised Rs. 12000- 18300) (with Ph. D) must remain the minimum eligibility for consideration of promotion from Reader to the post of Professor under CAS. Keeping in view the above clarification issued UGC it is clarified that a Scientist (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/ Asstt. Professor (Sr. Scale) with 5 years of service in the senior scale or with a total of 9 years service (with Ph.D)/10 years service (with M.Phil)/11 years service would be eligible for promotion to the post of Sr. Scientists/Scientist (Sel. Grade)/Reader (promotion)/Associate Professor (promotion)/Lecturer (Sel. Grade). But for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist/Professor (promotion) 8 years service as Senior Scientist/Reader/Associate Professor with Ph.D in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300, must remain the minimum eligibility." 2(iv)(b) Thus, by way of above clarification, ICAR made condition of 8 years of service as Associate Professor in the pay-scale of Rs.3700- 5700, mandatory for further promotion to the post of Professor. 2(iv)(c) Illustratively, Dr. Shyam Verma/ petitioner No.1, who having availed the benefit of the then CAS, had become Associate Professor in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700, on 11.11.1998, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996, would have become eligible for promotion as Professor on 10.05.2004, i.e. after completing 8 years of service as Associate Professor. 2(v) Adoption of ICAR Clarification dated 19.04.2001 by University: 2(v)(a) Since, the ICAR circulars/directions in respect of promotions/pay-scales, were binding on the university, therefore, it convened a meeting of its Board of Management for making necessary amendment in CAS Scheme of ICAR, adopted by it earlier vide Notification dated 18.12.2000. 2(v) Adoption of ICAR Clarification dated 19.04.2001 by University: 2(v)(a) Since, the ICAR circulars/directions in respect of promotions/pay-scales, were binding on the university, therefore, it convened a meeting of its Board of Management for making necessary amendment in CAS Scheme of ICAR, adopted by it earlier vide Notification dated 18.12.2000. 2(v)(b) Accordingly, Item No.2, as placed before the Board in its 72nd Special Meeting held on 27.11.2001, read as follows:- "To place before the Board of Management the matter regarding amendment in Career Advancement Scheme on the analogy of UHF, Solan and on the basis of guidelines received from the ICAR." 2(v)(c) The proposed amendment with which, we are presently concerned, was pursuant to ICAR clarification and not because of analogy of University of Horticulture and Forestry (UHF), Solan. The Board of Management on 27.11.2001, approved the amendments, as proposed in following language: "The Board of Management approved the amendments as proposed (as per annexure) in the existing CAS rules. However, the Board of Managment desired that the language should be the same as used by the ICAR while adopting amending ICAR Rules/Instructions in the University, in future." Thus, Board of Management on 27.11.2001, approved the agenda with rider that amendment will carry same language as was used by ICAR. The amendment being in respect to pay scale and promotion, even otherwise had to be approved only as per ICAR clarification dated 19.04.2001. There was no other option with either the Board or the University to take any different decision in this regard, at variance with ICAR Clarification. 2(v)(d) The approval was accorded by the Board to amend the existing CAS only in terms of language used by ICAR while making amendment in the ICAR, Rules/Instructions. Thus, the ICAR Clarifications, issued on 19.04.2001, were approved to be incorporated by way of amendment in the University, but without changing the language used by ICAR. In fact, need for amending the CAS was necessitated by the University only on account of the clarificatory letter issued by ICAR on 19.04.2001. The Annexure, which was placed before the Board (part of Annexure P-3), itself mentions at the top that the amendments have been proposed in CAS, in view of fresh ICAR guidelines and in view of UHF, Solan. The Annexure, which was placed before the Board (part of Annexure P-3), itself mentions at the top that the amendments have been proposed in CAS, in view of fresh ICAR guidelines and in view of UHF, Solan. In the present case, we are concerned with Clause 6.4(ii) of CAS and amendment thereof, which were necessitated not on account of UHF, Solan, but only on account of ICAR, clarification. 2(v)(e) Even though, the Board of Management of the University, was required to and had specifically approved the amendment proposals to be only in terms of the language used by ICAR, yet the amendment, which was eventually notified by the University, vide Annexure P-4 dated 18.12.2001, was at variance with ICAR clarification dated 19.04.2001 as well as in contradiction to Board's decision dated 27.11.2001. The amendment as notified by the University on 18.12.2001 is extracted hereinafter:- "S.No. Name of Section/Clause Existing Provision Amended Provision as approved by the B.O.M. ............. 6.4(ii) Completed 8 years service as Associate Prof. (directly recruited as well as promoted) provided that the requirement of 8 years service will be relaxed if the total service as Asstt. Prof. /Asstt. Prof. Senior Scale/Asstt. Prof. Selection Grade/Assoc. Prof. is not less than 17 years. Provided further that at least 5 years of service should have been rendered as Assoc. Prof. Equivalent in HPKV. Completed 8 years as Associate Professor (directly recruited as well as promoted). 2(vi) The difference between notified amendment with what should actually have been notified:- ICAR had clearly stipulated in its clarification dated 19.04.2001 that for promotion to the post of Professor, 8 years of service as Reader ( in the present case Associate Professor) in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700 will remain the minimum eligibility criteria. As discussed earlier, this clarification was binding on the University. However, while issuing its formal letter of accepting the ICAR clarification, University deviated not only from ICAR circular, but also deviated from its Board's of Director's decision dated 27.11.2001. The only condition by way of amendment of clause 6.4 (ii) of CAS, incorporated by the University, was possession of 8 years of service as Associate Professor for promotion as Professor. Thus, the condition of Associate Professor to be in a particular pay scale (Rs.3700-5700) as stipulated by ICAR, was done away with by the University, while professing to be acting as per ICAR terms and conditions. Thus, the condition of Associate Professor to be in a particular pay scale (Rs.3700-5700) as stipulated by ICAR, was done away with by the University, while professing to be acting as per ICAR terms and conditions. 2(vii) Benefits: Unjust Enrichment of Petitioners: 2(vii)(a) Here, it is to be noticed that the petitioners by taking the benefit of the then existing Personal Promotion Scheme/Career Advancement Scheme, had already been promoted as Associate Professors in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700. We had earlier extracted example of Dr. Shyam Verma/ petitioner No.1, who was promoted on 11.11.1998, as Associate Professor, in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996 under the then CAS Scheme. He would have become eligible for promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 11.05.2004, after completion of 8 years of service as Associate Professor. 2(vii)(b) By issuing Notification dated 18.12.2001, the University had already illegally done away with the condition of mandatory pay scale (Rs. 3700-5700) to be possessed by an Associate Professor for his further promotion as Professor, by notifying the only required eligibility condition as service of 8 years as Associate Professor. The petitioners, at that time, were serving in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, and were having the designation of Associate Professor. They had already availed the benefit of CAS Scheme and that's why they got retrospective promotion as Associate Professor in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700. However, as per clarification of ICAR dated 19.04.2001, they had to wait for 8 years from their respective retrospective dates of promotion as Associate Professor for becoming Professors. 2(vii)(c) The University, having already committed one illegality in form of Notification dated 18.12.2001, came out with another strange Notification dated 17.01.2002 (Annexure P-5). Whereunder, surprisingly, an opportunity was given to those Assistant Professors/equivalent, who were appointed on or before 01.02.1988, to exercise a fresh option under Personal Promotion Scheme as on 01.02.1988. Noticeably, this Scheme (PPS) stood already abolished w.e.f. 03.03.1999. 2(vii)(d) The conjoint result of above two notifications dated 18.12.2001 and 17.01.2002, resulted in unjust enrichment of petitioners. The petitioners grabbed this opportunity given to them by the University and exercised their options for promotion under lapsed Personal Promotion Scheme. Resultantly, the petitioners got designated as Associate Professor from back dates, but on a reduced pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000. 2(vii)(d) The conjoint result of above two notifications dated 18.12.2001 and 17.01.2002, resulted in unjust enrichment of petitioners. The petitioners grabbed this opportunity given to them by the University and exercised their options for promotion under lapsed Personal Promotion Scheme. Resultantly, the petitioners got designated as Associate Professor from back dates, but on a reduced pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000. Petitioners, naturally would not have minded going on less scale, as their such retrospective promotions would have given them requisite 8 years of service as Associate Professor much earlier, which was required for promotion as Professor under the University Notification of 18.12.2001. Since, the designations of the petitioners were retrospectively, changed as Associate Professors by the University by giving them benefit of strange Notification dated 17.01.2002, therefore, the petitioners even though, were in the lesser pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000, but came to retrospectively designated as Associate Professors, and further because of illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, wherein University had removed the condition of possession of pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, required by an Associate Professor for further promotion as Professor, got their promotions as Professor. All the petitioners in this manner were promoted as Professors. 2(vii)(e) To again quote the example of Dr. Shyam Verma/ petitioner No.1; (i) He on 11.11.1998 got benefit of Personal Promotion Scheme and became Associate Professor in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, retrospectively from 10.05.1996; (ii) under the strange Notification dated 17.01.2002, he exercised option and went back as Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 w.e.f. 01.06.1991; (iii) under the illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, by showing that 8 years of service as Associate Professor was completed on 01.06.1999, he got promotion as Professor on 01.06.1999; (iv) Thus, as against CAS, he got promotion as Professor about 5 years earlier due to option of Personal Promotion Scheme; (v) Thus, in an utmost unjustifiable manner, petitioners first got benefit of CAS, thereafter of abolished Personal Promotion Scheme and thereafter were again allowed to revert to Career Advancement Scheme. The only beneficiaries of these illegalities are the petitioners. 2(viii) Corrections of mistake by University: 2(viii)(a) The gross illegalities committed by the University were pointed out by the Audit of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh. The Audit para is reproduced hereinafter:- "(ii)(a) That a minimum 8 years experience/service as associate professor/equivalent. The only beneficiaries of these illegalities are the petitioners. 2(viii) Corrections of mistake by University: 2(viii)(a) The gross illegalities committed by the University were pointed out by the Audit of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh. The Audit para is reproduced hereinafter:- "(ii)(a) That a minimum 8 years experience/service as associate professor/equivalent. Test check of pay fixation orders in establishments/section of CSKHPV, Palampur revealed that eleven Scientists as per details given in Annexure 'A' to this para were promoted to the post of professor/equivalents in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400-450-20,900-500-22400(pre revised Rs. 4,500-5700) from the post of assistant professor/associate professor/equivalents in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 (pre revised Rs. 3,000-100-3,500-125-5000) instead of promoting them to the post of associate professor/equivalent in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300 (pre revised Rs. 3,700-125-4,700-150-5,700) which was the minimum eligibility criteria along with Ph. D. degree and 8 years experience/ service as associate professor/equivalents, which resulted in non-adherence of provision contained in career advancement scheme (CAS) and clarification issued by the ICAR from time to time and irregular payment of basic pay Rs. 29,22,120 which taking into account of Dearness pay and other allowances admissible from time to time. Under Personal Promotion Scheme (PPS) 1983, minimum eight years of service as associate professor/reader will be required for appointment/promotion to the post of professor. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter No. 1/(8)/99- per IV dated 8th Feb. 2000, clarified that the merit promotion scheme of 1983 (in University PPS) which was terminated in 1987 for those who did not opt for it, existing in State University and Central Agriculture University, Imphal stands abolished with effect from the date of notification of revised pay scale of teachers in SAUs issued by the Council, i.e. 03.03.1999. The ICAR letter dated 05.10.2000, 19.04.2001 and 15.02.2006 stipulate that for promotion to post of professor, 8 years service as associate professor with Ph. D. Degree in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300 ( pre-revised Rs. 3,700-5,700) must remain the minimum criteria/eligibility. The ICAR letter dated 05.10.2000, 19.04.2001 and 15.02.2006 stipulate that for promotion to post of professor, 8 years service as associate professor with Ph. D. Degree in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300 ( pre-revised Rs. 3,700-5,700) must remain the minimum criteria/eligibility. Further test check of pay fixation order revealed that ten scientist were promoted to the post of professor/equivalents under personal promotion scheme (PPS)/Merit promotion scheme, 1983 which was terminated stands abolished with effect from the date of notification of revised pay scales of teachers in State Agriculture Universities issued by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research i.e. 03.03.1999 and the said scientist were promoted under PPS on or after 02.06.1999, i.e. after the termination of PPS; who were required to be promoted under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to the post of Associate Professor/Equivalents in the pay scale of Rs. 12000- 420-18,300 (per-revised Rs. 3,700-5,700) and thereafter to the post of professor/equivalents keeping in view the minimum eligibility criteria of Ph.D degree and 8 years service/experience as an associate professor/equivalents. Which result in irregular promotion of the post of professor/equivalents and also resulted in irregular drawl of basic pay of Rs. 37,25,500 (without taking into account of Dearness pay and other allowances admissible from time to time). Approximately Rs. 66,7,620 as per detail given in Annexure 'A' to the para was paid excess basic pay to these professor promoted under CAS and PPS which was irregular and needs justification. In reply to audit memo No. 42 dated 01.01.2010, the Assistant Registrar EI stated that the required information will be supplied after examining/compiling the same on receipt of the reply from the concerned HOD/Offices at earliest possible. However, during discussion held on 08.01.2010 in the Chamber of Comptroller, CSKHPV Palampur, the Comptroller confirmed the facts and stated that the matter will be reviewed in the light of the instructions issued by the ICAR and action will be initiated accordingly. The requisite information may be supplied to audit at earliest besides this review of all such cases whether in equipment/service of retired may be done under intimation to audit." Audit pointed out that approximately Rs. 66,47,620/-, in form of irregular excess payment had already been made by that time to these Professors/Petitioners. The requisite information may be supplied to audit at earliest besides this review of all such cases whether in equipment/service of retired may be done under intimation to audit." Audit pointed out that approximately Rs. 66,47,620/-, in form of irregular excess payment had already been made by that time to these Professors/Petitioners. 2(viii)(b) The mistakes committed by it, having dawned upon the University, it sought to rectify the same by issuing Notification dated 11.08.2010 in sync with ICAR, circulars/directions and by issuing office order dated 18.08.2010. In terms of this office order; the excess payments released as well as undue promotions to the post of Professors, given to the petitioners were sought to be withdrawn, were to be recovered/adjusted after re-fixing their pay scales/promotions etc. By way of the Notification dated 11.08.2010 and order dated 18.8.2010, everything was to be streamlined on the basis of ICAR guidelines. 2(ix) Feeling aggrieved against the Notification dated 11.08.2010 and office order dated 18.08.2010, the petitioners preferred the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge on 18.08.2011, primarily on grounds:- (i) Board of Management of University had taken its own decision to deviate from ICAR guidelines of 19.04.2001. Therefore, ICAR guidelines of 19.04.2001 could not be applied by the University in 2010. (ii) University does not accept ICAR guidelines straightway and takes its own decision for their adoption. Therefore, ICAR guidelines are not straightaway applicable to University. (iii) Petitioners, based on the position as it existed in terms of Notifications dated 18.12.2001 and 17.04.2002, had exercised options and were granted benefits. Impugned order of 18.08.2010, allegedly correcting previous illegalities, visits petitioners by way of reduction in their pay scales and designations, therefore, needs to be quashed. Against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred by the University. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. While giving factual position of case in paras supra, we have discussed facts along with our observations. Succinctly put, following are points, which emerge for consideration in the instant case:- (a) Whether the University is bound by the ICAR circulars/ directions, in respect of pay scales and the service conditions including the promotions to the post of Professor. Whether University was bound by ICAR clarification letter dated 19.04.2001. (b) Whether Annexure P-3, dated 27.11.2001/ 18.12.2001, was validly issued by the University. Whether University was bound by ICAR clarification letter dated 19.04.2001. (b) Whether Annexure P-3, dated 27.11.2001/ 18.12.2001, was validly issued by the University. (c) Whether it was open for the University to have issued Notification dated 17.01.2002, giving option to the teachers under Personal Promotion Scheme, which had been abolished by ICAR, w.e.f. 03.03.1999. (d) Whether it was open to University to issue Notification dated 11.08.2010, streamlining its position as per ICAR instructions and whether it was open for University to issue order dated 18.8.2010, withdrawing the benefits given to the petitioners under Notification dated 18.12.2001 and 17.01.2002 in form of their promotions as Professor and scale of Professor. We propose to discuss hereinafter the above issues. 4. Binding Nature of ICAR, Circulars:- 4(i)(a) Letter dated 03.03.1999, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, very clearly culls out the position that the pay scales of teachers in State Agriculture Universities, will be regulated by ICAR. Not only the pay scales, but the service conditions of teachers in SAUs, are required to be determined in terms of this letter, only by ICAR. Even the decisions taken by UGC, will not be applicable to SAUs, unless and until, the same are adopted by ICAR. 4(i)(b) Letter dated 16.4.1999, issued by ICAR, addressed to all the State Governments and SAUs, categorically states that Agriculture Education comes within the purview of Department of Agriculture Research and Education. ICAR, provides the Grants-in-Aid, in turn, provided by the Government of India for disbursement to SAUs. It is the ICAR, which in case of SAUs, plays the same role, as is played by UGC for the general universities. Therefore, the service conditions of teachers in SAUs, as well as their scales, will be determined only by ICAR. 4(i)(c) It is the admitted and pleaded case of the University that it is bound by ICAR circulars and that it has followed the directions issued in the aforesaid communications dated 03.03.1999 and 16.04.1999, by issuing its own formal Notifications in this regard on 03.06.1999 and 14.06.1999, respectively. On the face of these communications, it is not even open to the University to contend otherwise. It is the University's own case, in its reply that the directions issued by ICAR, are to be followed by the University. On the face of these communications, it is not even open to the University to contend otherwise. It is the University's own case, in its reply that the directions issued by ICAR, are to be followed by the University. Various other aspects of the case, taken note of under other heads, also point out the position that the directions issued by ICAR, in respect of pay scales and service conditions of teachers, are binding on University. We answer the point accordingly. 4(ii) Issuance of letter dated 19.4.2001 and its implementation by the University (Point No.2):- 4(ii)(a) After abolishing Personal Promotion Scheme on 03.03.1999, ICAR had issued Career Advancement Scheme for Scientists of ICAR as well as for Teachers of SAUs, on 19.07.2000. This CAS issued by ICAR, since was binding on the University, it, therefore, accordingly issued a formal Notification in this regard vide Annexure P-2, dated 18.12.2000. The University while adopting the CAS, issued by ICAR, abolished its the then existing Personal Promotion Scheme. 4(ii)(b) The revised CAS Scheme, issued by the University vide Notification dated 18.12.2000, was in tune with the CAS, issued by ICAR. We are only examining the CAS, issued by ICAR and the University, in respect of the eligibility for Career Advancement of an Associate Professor/equivalent to the post of Professor as contained in Para 6.4 (ii) of the Scheme. 4(ii)(c) In terms of the Scheme circulated by ICAR and adopted by the University in 2000, the eligibility criteria for an Associate Professor for his promotion as Professor was either 8 years of service as Associate Professor or total service not less than 17 years with minimum 5 years of service as Associate Professor. 4(ii)(d) On the request of SAUs, the ICAR on 19.04.2001 issued a clarification regarding its CAS Scheme of 19.07.2000. In terms of this Clarification dated 19.04.2001, total service of 17 years with minimum 5 years as Associate Professor for promotion to the post of Professor was done away. It was clearly stipulated that minimum eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor will be 8 years of service as Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700. 4(ii)(e) The above was a clarification, which was issued by ICAR to 19.6.2000 CAS and since the University had already even formally adopted 19.6.2000 Scheme, therefore, it was bound to incorporate such clarification in its CAS, Scheme of 18.12.2000. 3700-5700. 4(ii)(e) The above was a clarification, which was issued by ICAR to 19.6.2000 CAS and since the University had already even formally adopted 19.6.2000 Scheme, therefore, it was bound to incorporate such clarification in its CAS, Scheme of 18.12.2000. We have already held that ICAR circulars in matters of pay scale and promotion conditions were binding on the University. University has also taken this very stand in its reply and rightly so. 4(ii)(f) The University in the instant case, accordingly went for issuing a formal adoption of clarification issued by ICAR by formally amending its 2000 CAS Scheme. The proposed amendment document in form of Annexure, was prepared by the University, proposing the amendment in clause 6.4 (ii), in view of the clarification issued by ICAR. Even though, the amendment exercise was undertaken by the University in view of the clarification issued by ICAR, yet, while proposing amendment to clause 6.4 (ii), in the Annexure, it deviated from the clarification issued by ICAR. In as much as, the proposed amendment of clause 6.4 (ii), though, incorporated 8 years of service required by Associate Professor for promotion as Professor, it, however, left out the pay scales of Rs. 3700-5700 required by Associate Professor for further promotion. 4(ii)(g) The Annexure as drafted above was placed before the Board of Management of the University for approval. It contained various other proposals, with which, we are not concerned in the present case. The Board of Management of University, approved the amendments as proposed. However, the Board of Management desired that language while adopting/amending the ICAR Rules/Circulars should be the same as used by ICAR. Thus, it cannot be said that the Board of Management while approving the amendments on 27.11.2001, had consciously taken a decision to deviate from ICAR Clarification. In fact, decision was to the effect that ICAR instructions had to be adopted in totality. So, in that sense, no illegality/irregularity has been committed by the Board of Management, in approving Item No.2, on 27.11.2001, even though, the Annexure prepared for the approval of the Board, was in complete variance to the instructions/clarifications of ICAR. Even otherwise, it was not open for the Board to take a decision different from the one taken by ICAR in its letter dated 19.04.2001. Even otherwise, it was not open for the Board to take a decision different from the one taken by ICAR in its letter dated 19.04.2001. 4(ii)(h) Though, the Board of Management of University, had directed the University Authorities to make amendments only in terms of ICAR language, yet it appears nobody in the University was willing to look into the language of the circular dated 19.4.2001 of the ICAR and to compare the same with its own Annexure placed before the Board, either before taking the matter to the Board or even after the Board's approval dated 27.11.2001. Resultantly, the Notification which finally came to be issued, vide Notification dated 18.12.2001, was nothing less but a blunder, where-under, the condition for promotion of an Associate Professor to the post of Professor, was reduced only to 8 years of service as Associate Professor. The required pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, was not reflected at all against the eligibility condition. We, are, therefore, of the firm view that ICAR circular dated 19.04.2001 was binding on university, the Board of Management of University had also actually directed the Authorities to retain the language of ICAR while adopting the ICAR Rules, it was not even open to it to take a different decision in this case, yet, the Notification, which eventually came to be issued on 18.12.2001 was in complete contradiction to ICAR circular as well as Board's decision dated 21.11.2001. This was absolutely illegal. Actions taken under this illegal Notification of 18.12.2001, cannot be allowed to be sustained. 4(iii) Grant of Benefit to Petitioners under Lapsed Personal Promotion Scheme: 4(iii)(a) University by way of above referred; (a) Notification of 18.12.2001 had illegally altered and reduced the eligibility criteria for becoming a Professor, from 8 years of service as Associate Professor in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, to just 8 years of service as Associate Professor; (b) Petitioners had already been granted the benefit of CAS/PPS and stood promoted as Associate Professor on 11.11.1998, (example quoted of Dr. Shyam Verma/petitioner No.1) in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996. 3700-5700, to just 8 years of service as Associate Professor; (b) Petitioners had already been granted the benefit of CAS/PPS and stood promoted as Associate Professor on 11.11.1998, (example quoted of Dr. Shyam Verma/petitioner No.1) in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 retrospectively w.e.f. 10.05.1996. Petitioners at that time in 2001 didn't have complete 8 years of service as Associate Professor, to make them eligible for promotion as Professor, though had the requisite pay scale; (c) University in utter bizarre manner gave the petitioners an opportunity of exercising fresh option under Personal Promotion Scheme, which was abolished by ICAR w.e.f 3.3.1999. How and under circumstances, the teachers/petitioners who had already been granted the benefit of CAS Scheme were given the opportunity to exercise option under an abolished Scheme, defeats the logic. It only gave the petitioners a cause to be unjustly enriched. 4(iii)(b) The petitioners naturally grabbed this opportunity, which enabled them to go backwards and claim retrospective promotions as Associate Professor in pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000. The ICAR condition of possessing the pay scale (Rs. 3700-5700) by Associate Professor to become eligible for promotion to the post of Professor, had already been done away with, by the University by way of issuance of an illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, whereafter taking advantage of Notification dated 17.1.2002, the petitioners exercised their option under lapsed PPS and were granted retrospective designation/promotions as Associate Professors in the scale of Rs.3000-5000/-. In this manner the petitioners satisfied the only required eligibility condition for promotion to the post of Professor, i.e. 8 years of service as Associate Professor. 4(iii)(c) We are of the considered view that Notification dated 17.1.2002, came to be issued only in connection with Notification dated 18.12.2001. On its own, 17.1.2002 Notification, would not have benefitted the petitioners. The condition of possession of pay scale of (Rs. 3700-5700) by Associate Professor for promotion as Professor had been illegally removed under 18.12.2001, Notification and, therefore, retrospective promotions by taking the advantage of option provided to them under an abolished Scheme under Notification dated 17.01.2002, entitled the petitioners to the promotions to the post of Professors. Petitioners were accordingly promoted as Professors. The action is absolutely, illegal. Benefits given under illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, is required to be withdrawn. The errors in previous Notifications have been corrected by the University by issuing fresh Notification dated 11.08.2010, in line with ICAR directions/clarifications. Petitioners were accordingly promoted as Professors. The action is absolutely, illegal. Benefits given under illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, is required to be withdrawn. The errors in previous Notifications have been corrected by the University by issuing fresh Notification dated 11.08.2010, in line with ICAR directions/clarifications. No illegality can be found in impugned Notification dated 11.08.2010 and impugned order dated 18.08.2010, withdrawing such benefits, wrongfully given to the petitioners. The fact situation of this case read with applicable instructions leave no escape from concluding that the order dated 18.08.2010, withdrawing the benefits illegally granted to the petitioners, is justified. 5. Even though, the University was aware of 19.4.2001, circular, issued by ICAR as well as required adherence to the conditions imposed by ICAR, for promotion to the post of Professors, yet, it made no efforts on its own to prevent the departures being made by it in promoting the petitioners as Professors. It was only the audit of Accountant General of Himachal Pradesh, raised objections that huge excess payments have been made to the petitioners and wrong promotions have been effected that the University issued Annexure P-6, dated 18.08.2010, withdrawing the benefits given by it earlier. 6. We refrain ourselves from commenting upon the work and conduct of University/its officials in issuing (i) Notification dated 18.12.2001, contrary not only to binding ICAR Clarification dated 19.04.2001, but also contrary to the decision of its Board of Management as well; (ii) In issuing Notification dated 17.02.2002, genesis of which, was obviously based upon illegal Notification dated 18.12.2001, and gave options to petitioners, who had already availed benefit of CAS Scheme to avail benefit of lapsed PPS Scheme and thereafter again allowed them to come to CAS Scheme of 2000. University can neither be heard to contend nor this is an argument of University that ICAR Clarification dated 19.04.2001, was not to its knowledge. We leave it to the governing body of University to decide on the actions and measures, if any, required to be taken in the matter against the erring officials on such issues, it deems fit, in the fact and circumstances of the case. 7. With the above observations, this appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, writ petition filed by the respondents/ original petitioners is dismissed.