JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. This bunch of writ petitions relates to absorption of teachers engaged on honorarium basis, in aided non-government Degree Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Method and methodology to be followed for their absorption, in the backdrop of applicable statutory scheme, as also the previous judgments operating in the field, requires determination. 2. Prior to 1973, Higher Education in the State of Uttar Pradesh was dispensed through different Universities and its affiliated Colleges which were established under different statutory enactments. In order to bring uniformity and for streamlining higher education in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Parliament enacted the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973'). The Act of 1973 contained provisions to regulate appointment of teachers in the existing Universities as also the affiliated Colleges including provisions for establishment of new Colleges. Section 31 of the Act of 1973 provided that appointment of teachers would be made only on the recommendation of Selection Committee, in terms of Sub-section (2) thereof. The constitution of Selection Committee was also prescribed. Appointment of teachers in the affiliated Degree Colleges had to be made substantive basis by way of direct recruitment by following a transparent recruitment process. However, experience showed that recruitment contemplated as per the Act of 1973, did not materialize for various reasons, necessitating the legislature to introduce a provision in 1977 for regularization of teachers hitherto engaged on ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis. Over a further period of time it was also realized that the scheme for direct recruitment of teachers on substantive basis, under the Act of 1973 has failed to deliver the desired result. 3. The State legislature, consequently, came out with a new piece of legislation known as U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1980'). Task of appointing teachers in aided Colleges was entrusted to the Higher Education Service Commission, a statutory body created under Section 3 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). All posts sanctioned under Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, fell within its purview, except posts in aided Colleges established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution or a College exclusively maintained by the State Government. All posts sanctioned under Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, fell within its purview, except posts in aided Colleges established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution or a College exclusively maintained by the State Government. By way of an amendment, introduced vide U.P. Act No. 30 of 2004, the definition of 'College' in the Act of 1980 was amended further to exclude a College running self finance course. 4. Functions of the Commission have been specified in Sections 11 and 11-A of the Act of 1980. Section 12 of the Act of 1980 prescribes the procedure for appointment of teachers and is reproduced hereinafter:- “[12. Procedure for appointment of teachers. - (1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void.] [Provided that a permanent teacher of an affiliated or associated college, who has been appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and has completed ten years' service as such and who wishes to be transferred to any other college, may be transferred in the manner prescribed by rules from one college to another, only when the respective management of the colleges concerned give their consents in writing. (1a) Notwithstanding any decree or order of a Court, a teacher who has been appointed as such by transfer from one college to another in pursuance of the Government Orders No. 429 Shiksha Mantri/Sattar-6-98-15-95, dated 17.8.1998 or No. 393/Sattar-l-99-15(6)-99, dated 28.10.1999 shall be deemed to have been validly appointed as if the provisions the principal Act as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Second Amendment) Act, 2004 were in force at all material times.] (2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies, likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed. Explanation. - The expression “academic year” means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. Explanation. - The expression “academic year” means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. (4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulations : Provided that the Commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under sub-section (3): Provided further that the candidates shall be required to indicate their order of preference for the various colleges, vacancies wherein have been advertised.” 5. Section 13 of the Act of 1980 refers to the recommendation of Commission and is also reproduced hereinafter:- “[13. Recommendation of Commission. - (1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub-section (3) of Section 12, hold interview (with or without written examination) of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so far as practicable, twenty five per cent more the number of vacancies in that subject. Such names shall be arranged in order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination and interview if an examination is held. (2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission. (3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order of preference if any indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 12, intimate to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub-section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub-section (2) of Section 12. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. (5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions, whereto abolition of any post of teacher in any college, services of the person substantively appointed to such post is terminated the State Government may make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy, whether notified under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or not in any other college, and thereupon the Director shall intimate to the management accordingly. (6) The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned.]” 6. Although the Commission constituted under the Act of 1980 was expected to facilitate timely appointment of Teachers in the Colleges concerned, but procedural delay & other reasons belied such hopes. Realizing it the legislature introduced Section 16 in the Act of 1980 to facilitate making of ad-hoc appointment as the process of regular appointment was taking unduly long time. The direct recruitment of teachers by the Commission, in sufficient numbers, nevertheless, remained a distant dream. A Division Bench of this Court in Anurag Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 4 ADJ 304 , took note of the relevant facts which would throw light on the functioning of the Commission itself. Paragraphs 9 to 15 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinafter:- “9. At this stage the Court may taken note of the various advertisement and selections made by the said Commission for the purpose of filling up the vacancies on the post of Lecturer in various Degree Colleges as disclosed by the Director of Higher Education in his affidavit. The details are as follows: 10. Between 1980 to 1994 only six advertisements for the post of Lecturers were published by the Commission namely: Advertisement No. No. of Post Advertised No. of Candidates Selected a. Adv. No. 02 of 1983 97 73 b. Adv. No. 03 of 1983 207 Cancelled c. Adv. No. 06 of 1985 264 239 d. Adv. No. 07 of 1985 111 107 e. Adv. No. 09 of 1986 86 64 f. Adv. No. 02 of 1983 97 73 b. Adv. No. 03 of 1983 207 Cancelled c. Adv. No. 06 of 1985 264 239 d. Adv. No. 07 of 1985 111 107 e. Adv. No. 09 of 1986 86 64 f. Adv. No. 10 of 1986 317 222 g. Adv. No. 17 of 1991 194 119 h. Adv. No. 19 of 1991 259 Cancelled Total Selections : 824 11. For the period 1994 to 2007 the position is as follows : Advertisement No. Total no. of vacancies available notification to the commission Total no. of vacancies advertised Total no. of selection and placements 20/1994 722 722 557 24/1998 149 149 52 26/1998 870 870 631 27/2000 97 97 34 28/2000 183 183 49 29/2000 1640 1640 1253 30/2002 57 57 31 The results of different subject were received during the period of 2 years (2003 to 2005) 31/2002 128 128 68 32/200 842 842 791 37/2003 838 838 Selection process completed but result stayed by the Hon'ble Court's order dated 187-05 passed in writ petition no. 48149 of 2003 38/2005 281 281 Selection process is on but result is stayed under the aforesaid order dated 18-7-2005 40/2006 245 179 179 41/2007 552 552 Selection yet to start 42/2007 337 337 vacancies advertised and last date for filling the application was 15.2.2008 Selection yet to start 12. It will be seen from the aforesaid that in the last 27 years of its existence the Higher Education Service Commission could select only 824+3656 = 4459 candidates. 13. The Court has been informed that as of date nearly 9000 vacancies on the post of Lecturer in the Aided Degree Colleges remained unfilled. If the efficiency of the Higher Education Commission in last 27 years is an indication of the things to come it would mean that the Commission will take nearly 54 years to fill all the existing vacancies as of date. We at this stage can only hope that the State would take some radical steps to save the Higher Education in U.P. from getting bad to worse. 14. We at this stage can only hope that the State would take some radical steps to save the Higher Education in U.P. from getting bad to worse. 14. Another reason disclosed to the Court for the inordinate delay in the selection of teachers for affiliated Degree Colleges is that the State Government enforced U.P. Act No. 04 of 1994, namely, The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1994 where-under the post of teacher and other staff of educational institutions receiving grant in aid from the State Government have been included. The Act provides for reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste to the extent of 21%, Scheduled Tribes 2% and Other Backward Classes 27%. Despite the enforcement of the reservation, no corresponding amendments have been introduced in the Commission's Act and there exists a serious dispute with regard to the cadre strength against which the percentage of reservation is to be applied. Parties are at a variance as to whether (a) the reservation is to be applied with reference to number of post in a particular subject taught in the college (b) to the number of total posts in a particular faculty of the College or (c) against the total posts of Lecturers in the College as a whole. 15. Lastly it has been informed that with every change of the Government in the State, there has been a change of Chairman and the members of the Commission and for the period 26.06.1997 to 23.02.1999 (i.e. 01 year 08 months), and thereafter between 14.09.2001 to 05.08.2002 (11 months), there has been no Chairman of the Commission. This has also contributed to the delayed selections.” 7. In Anurag Tripathi (supra), this Court also took note of the provisions added in the applicable statutes by the State Legislature for regularizing the services of teachers in affiliated Degree Colleges from time to time. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment in that regard, are also reproduced hereinafter:- “16. The Court may now refer to the various steps taken by the State legislature for regularizing ad hoc/short term appointment etc. because of the failure of the Commission to recommend suitable candidates against the vacant posts from time to time. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment in that regard, are also reproduced hereinafter:- “16. The Court may now refer to the various steps taken by the State legislature for regularizing ad hoc/short term appointment etc. because of the failure of the Commission to recommend suitable candidates against the vacant posts from time to time. The first amendment in that regard was enforced by addition of Section 31 (1) (b) to the Commission's Act vide Act No. 21 of 1988 whereby ad hoc teachers and Principal directly appointed on or before 03.01.1984 were directed to be regularized. Thereafter by addition of Section 31-B (2) (a) (added vide Act No. 26 of 1989) regularization of ad hoc teachers appointed on or before 03.01.1984 against a vacancy referable to paragraph 2 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 and 1983 were directed to be regularized. Thereafter vide U.P. Act No. 02 of 1992, Section 31 (C) was added to the Commission's Act whereby a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis after 03.01.1984 but not later than 2.11.1991 was directed to be regularized. Sub Clause 4 of Section 31-C of the Act, 1973 provided that all such teachers who are not offered substantive appointment under earlier sub section would be removed from service. However by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1997 Sub Section 5 was added to Section 31-C and it was provided that all those teachers who were not found suitable for substantive appointment earlier, may now be reconsidered for substantive appointment, and it was declared that it would be deemed that they had never ceased to hold the post. 17. With the enforcement of Act No. 02 of 1992, Section 16 of the Act, 1973 which provided for ad hoc appointment of teachers pending regular selection by the Commission was deleted. As a result whereof there remained no power to make ad hoc appointment against the substantive vacancies. Similarly the power of the State Government to issue directions for removing the difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Commission's Act stood lost after expiry of two years from the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 02 of 1992 (subsequent to 02.03.1991) as is apparent from the language of Section 31-A (proviso) itself. 18. Similarly the power of the State Government to issue directions for removing the difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Commission's Act stood lost after expiry of two years from the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 02 of 1992 (subsequent to 02.03.1991) as is apparent from the language of Section 31-A (proviso) itself. 18. Thus the legislature realised that power to make ad hoc appointment was the root cause for regularization being claimed and granted by the State, it decided to do away with such a power of ad- hoc appointment itself with a clear purpose that all appointments against substantive vacancies should be made on the recommendation of the Commission after due selection.” 8. Notwithstanding the deletion of provision in the Act of 1980 which enabled making of ad-hoc appointment, a Government Order dated 7.4.1998 was issued by the State permitting appointment of part time teachers in the colleges concerned as teachers in sufficient numbers were not being made available by the Commission. The appointment of such teachers was to be made against substantive vacancy, duly created in the affiliated College, after obtaining approval of the Director concerned. Such appointments were to be made for a fix period and were to expire at the end of the academic session. The procedure for engagement was also specified in the government order itself. Moreover, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions such teachers have been allowed to be paid honorarium in the minimum of pay-scale admissible to a regularly appointed teacher without usual allowances etc. All the petitioners in this bunch of petitions (except the writ of Dr. Rakesh Kumar) have been appointed in accordance with the government order dated 7.4.1998 and have continued to work for sufficiently long. 9. The State Legislature acknowledging the plight of such teachers and the need to integrate them in the regular cadre of teachers enacted U.P. Act No. 42 of 2006 whereby Section 31-E has been added in the Act of 1980 providing for absorption of teachers engaged under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998. 9. The State Legislature acknowledging the plight of such teachers and the need to integrate them in the regular cadre of teachers enacted U.P. Act No. 42 of 2006 whereby Section 31-E has been added in the Act of 1980 providing for absorption of teachers engaged under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998. Section 31-E, as was originally enacted, is reproduced hereinafter:- “31-E (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Section 12 and 13, if any vacancy exists, which can not be filled under the provisions of said sections, a teacher on honorarium shall be absorbed in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2), who is working in grant in aid college, possessing educational qualifications determined by the State Government, receiving honorarium. Thereby working for a minimum period of three academic sessions and has been working till the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Third Amendment) Act, 2006. (2) Where any substantive vacancy in the post of a teacher in a grant in aid college is to be filled by direct recruitment, such post shall, at the instance of the Director, be offered by the management to teacher on honorarium referred to in sub section (1). (3) Where any teacher on honorarium who has been offered appointment in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) fails to join the post within the time allowed, which shall not be less than Fifteen days, his further claim shall cease automatically. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section :- “teacher on honorarium” means a person working in grant-in-aid college and is engaged in teaching a course of study and receiving payment from the Funds of State aid on a fixed honorarium appointed on a contractual basis with the prior approval of the Director. (4) Where the Management fails to offer any post to a teacher on honorarium in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) within the time specified by the Director, the Director, may himself issue the letter of appointment to such teacher on honorarium and the teacher on honorarium concerned shall be entitled to get his salary as teacher, from the date, he joins the post in pursuance of such letter of appointment.” 10. The validity of Section 31-E, aforesaid, was assailed in a bunch of writ petitions with leading writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5210 of 2007; Anurag Tripathi Vs. The validity of Section 31-E, aforesaid, was assailed in a bunch of writ petitions with leading writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5210 of 2007; Anurag Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others. After considering the respective submissions advanced and upon examining the relevant provisions this Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing various directions. Paragraphs 64 to 70 of the judgment in Anurag Tripathi (supra) are relevant for the present purposes, and are accordingly reproduced hereinafter:- “64. What had been taken away by deleting Section 16 of the Commission's Act, has indirectly been provided for under the Government Order dated 17.04.1998 and now such appointees are sought to be absorbed under Section 31-E of the Commission's Act. The Court fails to comprehend the exact intention of the State except that there is an attempt to somehow or the other to resort to appointments which are initially stop gap/part-time/ad hoc and thereafter to regularise such appointments. The total outcome of such practice is that the quality of education by teachers duly selected by the Commission has been made a casualty and the ultimate sufferers are the students for whom neither the State nor the authorities appear to have any concern. 65. We, therefore, have no hesitation to record that the State should consider to do way with the practice of short term, ad hoc/part time appointments and thereafter to direct regularization. We however refrain ourselves from striking down Section 31-E of the Commission's Act only in the background that such arrangement of absorption shall not be repeated and the State shall ensure regular appointment of Lecturers in the affiliated Degree Colleges with all promptness and all necessary steps for fulfilling the said object without any demur shall be taken. 66. We direct that the Commission shall advertise all vacancies as may be available in Degree Colleges within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Director of Higher Education. For the said purpose the Director of Higher Commission shall ensure that letters are forwarded to the Management/Principals of all the Degree Colleges covered by the Commission's Act for requisitioning the existing vacancies along with the details of reservation applicable to the Commission with a copy to the Director within one month of the issuance of the letter. (In case of default by the Management/Principal, serious action should be taken). (In case of default by the Management/Principal, serious action should be taken). The Commission shall ensure advertisement of such vacancies and the names of the selected candidates shall be forwarded after due selection to the Director for placement within one year of the Advertisement. This process of placement in various Degree Colleges may be completed in respect of the existing vacancies immediately thereafter (except those which may be covered by Section 31-E of the Commission's Act) qua action shall be taken strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004. 67. We may also explain as to what posts would be covered by Section 31-E of the Commission's Act. Section 31-E starts with a clause that the same is subject to the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of the Commission's Act and absorption against vacancies which cannot be filled under the said Section 12 and 13 alone are to be utilized for the purposes of absorption of part-time teachers. Section 12 of the Commission's Act provides that appointment on the post of teachers shall be made on the recommendation of Commission. Section 13 of the Commission's Act provide that Commission shall forward the select list of the candidates to the Director of Higher Education who in turn shall issue orders for placement of the selected candidates against the vacancies advertised. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Section 12 and 13 it would be seen that vacancies which have been notified and have been advertised can be filled under Section 12 and 13 of the Act. 68. It is settled law that the process of selection stands initiated with the advertisement (Vide Y.N.Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) AIR SC 852; A.A.Calton Vs. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) AIR SC 1143; P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1988) AIR SC 2068; and P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) AIR SC 405). Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) AIR SC 852; A.A.Calton Vs. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) AIR SC 1143; P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1988) AIR SC 2068; and P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) AIR SC 405). Therefore, once a vacancy has been advertised for direct recruitment under Section 12 it can be filled in accordance with Section 12 and 13 of the Act and it is in this background that the legislature has directed that for the purposes of Section 31-E only such vacancies which cannot be filled under Section 12 and 13 would be available for absorption for part-time teachers. We may clarify that any attempt to fill any advertised vacancy by the Commission through absorption under Section 31-E would adversely effect the reservation applied and may render the advertisement itself as illegal. If such advertised vacancies are withdrawn because of absorption under Section 31-E the entire process of selection already initiated by the Commission would be frustrated and this is not the intention of the legislation. 69. We, therefore, clarify that absorption, if any, under Section 31-E of the Commission's Act can be made only in respect of vacancies which had not been subject matter of an Advertisement by the Commission, such advertised vacancies will not be available for absorption under Section 31-E and the process of direct recruitment has to be completed by the Commission in accordance with law at the earliest. 70. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions : (a) Part-time teachers appointed under the Government Order dated 17.04.1998 would continue to function as such till regularly selected candidates recommended by the Commission joins, or in terms of the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004 whichever is earlier. (b) Such Part-time teachers shall be entitled to payment at the rate provided for under the Government Order on per lecture basis subject to the maximum prescribed, they are not entitled to salary at par with regular Lecturers. (c) Absorption under Section 31-E of the Commission's Act shall not be effected in favour of any part-time teacher till the Hon'ble Supreme Court considers and decide the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004. (c) Absorption under Section 31-E of the Commission's Act shall not be effected in favour of any part-time teacher till the Hon'ble Supreme Court considers and decide the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2004. (d) Absorption, if any, of part-time teachers under Section 31-E of the Act subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (if it is decided in favour of part-time teachers) would be considered against such substantive vacancies which had not been advertised by the Commission till the enforcement of Act No. 46 of 2006. (e) The Director of Higher Education shall ensure that all existing vacancies are requisitioned by the Management/Principal of the recognized affiliated and aided Degree Colleges within the time specified above and the Commission in turn shall ensure that regular selection are made against the said vacancies within one year from the date the requisition is received after following the procedure prescribed. The Director shall direct placement of the selected candidates immediately thereafter. There should be no complaint to this Court that selections could not be made by the Commission because of absence of Chairman/other member/other facilities being not made available by the State.” 11. At this stage, it would also be necessary to take note of the anomaly created in selection and appointment of teachers, by the Commission, on account of incorrect application of the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). Recruitment was being made by the Commission on the basis of a requisition sent by the Director, clubbing all vacancies in different subjects/Colleges and by treating the vacancies to be of a composite single cadre and then apportioning vacancies for different categories of candidates by applying rules for reservation. Legality of this process was assailed on the ground that roster for reservation ought to be applied by treating the cadre as subject-wise and college-wise. The issue was ultimately resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,2009 2 ESC 1387. The judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh has also been affirmed by the Apex Court. Para 91 of the judgment in the case of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh (supra) containing the operative portion of the judgment, is reproduced hereinafter:- “91. Vishwajeet Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,2009 2 ESC 1387. The judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh has also been affirmed by the Apex Court. Para 91 of the judgment in the case of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh (supra) containing the operative portion of the judgment, is reproduced hereinafter:- “91. After having examined the issues as noticed above and recording our observations as above now we proceed to decide all the writ petitions. The writ petition No. 48149 of 2003 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, which is leading writ petition have made four prayers as quoted above. The prayer of the petitioners are to quash the advertisement dated 9.7.2003 as published on 16.7.2003 Advertisement No. 37 and also to quash the Government order dated 3.7.2002 and 17.4.2003 as well as D.O. Letter dated 4.7.2002. In writ petition No. 48149 an interim order was passed by this Court on 18.7.2005, directing that until further orders selection process scheduled to commence from 19.7.200 may go on but result of selection shall not be declared. We have held that Advertisement no. 37 insofar as it advertise 467 vacancies which arose up to 30th June, 2003 due to resignation, retirement and death could not be treated as backlog vacancies and could not be advertised along with special recruitment. The advertisement no. 37 in so far as 467 vacancies is concerned is quashed. However, the selection process in so far as 371 carry forward vacancies are concerned should be taken to its logical end. The Government order dated 3.7.2002 Annexure-21 to the writ petition in so far as it directs computation of reservation on the basis of entire cadre strength instead of vacancies, being not in accordance with law is quashed. We having held that the criteria for computation of reservation and the unit for applicability of reservation having been erroneously taken by the respondents, the applicability of reservation requires to be redetermined, while implementing the selection with regard to 371 backlog vacancies. The writ petition No. 48149 of 2003, Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others is partly allowed with following directions: (i) The advertisement No. 37 dated 9.7.2003 in so far as it advertised 467 vacancies which arose up to 30.6.2003 due to death, resignation or retirement is quashed. The writ petition No. 48149 of 2003, Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others is partly allowed with following directions: (i) The advertisement No. 37 dated 9.7.2003 in so far as it advertised 467 vacancies which arose up to 30.6.2003 due to death, resignation or retirement is quashed. However, the advertisement in so far as it advertises 371 carry forward vacancies which remained unfilled is maintained. (ii) The Director, Higher Education shall before declaring the result against 371 carry forward vacancies shall re-determine the number of vacancies against which select list be issued by applying reservation and roster subject-wise and college-wise. The declaration shall be confined only to those vacancies which were carry forward vacancies and were advertised earlier by advertisement no. 29 and could not be filled up. The Director may determine on the basis of records available with him or may call for any other reports or record from management or any other competent authority. The candidates whose names are included in the select list shall be given option to give fresh choice of the colleges as required by the second proviso to section 12 (4) which has become necessary in view of quashing the advertisement against 471 vacancies and direction issued by this order to the Director to redetermine the correct number of reserved vacancies out of carry forward vacancies against which select list is to be issued. The Director shall complete the aforesaid exercise within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and thereafter take appropriate steps for issuing recommendation for appointment in accordance with U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. (iii) The Director shall take steps for advertising 471 vacancies which were covered by advertisement no. 37 applying the rules of reservation and roster as per the above directions by taking necessary steps at an early date. (iv). The rules of reservation and roster shall be applied college-wise and subject-wise when there are plurality of posts as indicated above.” 12. Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 has been amended vide U.P. Act No. 22 of 2014 and the earlier expression used therein i.e. 'cannot be filled' has been substituted by the expression 'could not be filled'. Validity of this amendment was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016; Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and 7 others Vs. Validity of this amendment was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016; Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and others. While entertaining the writ petition, following interim order was passed by this Court on 27.5.2016:- “We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Seemant Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior Advocate, Sri Manish Goyal assisted by Sri Man Mohan Singh, Sri Anoop Kumar, Sri Kartikey Saran, Ms. Durga Tewari, Advocates and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 2014 (U.P. Act No. 22 of 2014). The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioners are the selected candidates against the advertisement nos. 37 of 2003, 38 of 2005, 42 of 2008 and 46 of 2014 for the post of Lecturers in Degree Colleges. It was urged that pursuant to the advertisement nos. 37 of 2003 and 38 of 2005, the last stage of selection has been completed, i.e., interview has been held, but, the result has not been declared on account of an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6386 of 2010. In so far as advertisement no.42 of 2008 is concerned, it is contended that it was challenged by honorarium teachers in Writ Petition No. 51212 of 2010, Dr. Archana Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which an interim order was passed and thereafter the writ petition was allowed and the advertisement was quashed. The selected candidates have filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 952-956 of 2011, Dr. (Mrs.) Sudipta Banerjee Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which an interim order has been passed. In so far as advertisement no.46 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioners contend that the written examination has been held. The result is to be declared, but, in the meantime a SLP being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33407 of 2014, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. Pratima Mishra was filed before the Supreme Court, which is pending consideration. In so far as advertisement no.46 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioners contend that the written examination has been held. The result is to be declared, but, in the meantime a SLP being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33407 of 2014, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. Pratima Mishra was filed before the Supreme Court, which is pending consideration. The petitioners contend that they want regular appointment as per the provision of the Act, which is not being made on account of pending litigation by the part time honorarium teachers, who are claiming regularization initially under the Government Order dated 17.04.1998and now under the provision of Section 31-E of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was inserted by U.P. Act no.42 of 2006. In this regard, we find that the part time teachers filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5110 of 2007, Anurag Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, for payment of regular salary and absorption against a substantive post under Section 31-E of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition held that the part time teachers cannot be absorbed till such time the Supreme Court does not decide the matter in the case of Malvika Shekhar Vs. Director of Higher Education, U.P. and others. The Division Bench held that the Government Order dated 17.04.1998 providing absorption of part time teachers cannot be utilized since the said Government Order has been rescinded by a Government Order dated 29.03.2011. The Division Bench further held that the vacancies, which have not been advertised and notified, can only be filled up and that it was not the intention of the legislature to fill up the advertised post from part time teachers. In this regard, the Division Bench in the case of Malvika Shekhar's (Supra) held that contractual appointments do not confer any right for regular appointments. The Supreme Court eventually set aside the judgment of the High Court and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. We find that eventually the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous by judgment dated 11.04.2011. Another decision was given in Dr. Shweta Bansal Vs. State of U.P., in which it was held that no appointment made previously or in future on honorarium post could continue. We find that eventually the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous by judgment dated 11.04.2011. Another decision was given in Dr. Shweta Bansal Vs. State of U.P., in which it was held that no appointment made previously or in future on honorarium post could continue. This decision was subsequently recalled in a review application being filed. Soon after the decision in the case of Shweta (Supra) the State Government issued an Ordinance No. 3 of 2014 amending Section 31-E of the Act. By this Ordinance, the words “cannot be filled” was substituted by the words “could not be filled”. Based on this amendment, a communique was made by the Special Secretary directing the Director of Education to take necessary steps for absorption of the teachers in terms of the amended provision. The selected candidates, namely, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 35652 of 2014 and, by an interim order dated 14.07.2014, the writ Court issued notice to the Advocate General questioning the vires of the amendement and directing the State Government to process the absorption of the teachers in the meanwhile but final orders would not be passed. Subsequently, the Ordinance was repealed by the Act, as a consequence of which, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by an order dated 06.04.2016. The present writ petition has now been filed for declaring the U.P. Act No. 22 of 2014 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same argument was raised, which was raised in earlier writ petition and it was asserted that a similar interim order may be passed. The prayer for grant of similar interim order was vehemently opposed by the counsels, who have filed impleadment application on behalf of part time teachers. The Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the impleadment application and heard the learned counsel for the parties on stay application. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the amendment of Section 31-E by the Amending Act is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Anurag Tripathi (Supra). It was contended that there can be no absorption under a statutory provision of persons whose appointments are null and void. It was contended that there can be no absorption under a statutory provision of persons whose appointments are null and void. It was further contended that in any case absorption cannot be made on the vacancies, which have been notified and advertised. On the other hand, the impleaded part time teachers contend that the writ petitions have been filed belatedly since the Act was passed in the year 2014. It was contended that if the vires of the Act have been challenged, the Courts should bear in mind that unless the provision is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, the Court must show judicial restraint in staying the applicability of the Act. It was contended normally, the legislation should not be put under suspension, inasmuch as there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutional validity of any legislation. In support of their submissions, Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior Advocate relied upon the case of Bhavesh D. Parish and others Vs. Union of India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 471 and State of H.P. and others Vs. Mahendra Pal And Another, (1995) Supp2 SCC 731. It was also urged that the honorarium teachers were appointed on account of exigencies considering the litigation that were filed and which were pending in various Courts with regard to their regular selection pursuant to the advertisement made in the years 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2014. The State Government after considering the necessity issued the Amending Act in 2006 inserting Section 31-E and thereby making a provision for absorption of part time teachers, which was salutary provision which till date, has not been implemented on account of various litigations. It was also urged that the validity of Section 31-E was upheld by this Court in the case of Anurag Tripathi (Supra) and, therefore, there was no impediment on the part of the authorities in not filling up the vacancies through absorption of part time teachers. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly, we find that Section 31-E of the Act provides for absorption of part time teachers. The existing Section 31-E of the Act has clearly provided for absorption of such part time teachers against substantive vacancy of lecturers available in Degree Colleges. The Division Bench did not quash the said provision as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2009, Dr. The existing Section 31-E of the Act has clearly provided for absorption of such part time teachers against substantive vacancy of lecturers available in Degree Colleges. The Division Bench did not quash the said provision as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2009, Dr. Gaurav Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 22.12.2010, another Division Bench of this Court held that the provision of Section 31-E of the Act cannot be treated as a substitute to Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and that Section 31-E of the Act has been introduced to deal with emergent situation where the Commission has failed to fill up the vacancies within the reasonable period. However, we find that such stop gap arrangement cannot be equated with regard to regular selection. The apprehension of the petitioners that by this amendment the advertised posts would also be filled up is well founded. The petitioners have undergone the selection process but their appointments have not been made on account of litigation pending in the Supreme Court. We also find that the Amending Act prima facie is against the teeth of the directions contained in the case of Anurag Tripathi (Supra). The intention of the legislature could not be to only absorb part time teachers on all the vacancies and give a go bye to regular appointments on substantive vacancies. All these aspects require consideration and enquiry from the Court. We, accordingly, issue notice to the Advocate General calling upon him to place the view of the State Government on the next date. In the meanwhile, learned Standing Counsel and the newly impleaded respondents will file a counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List for admission and final disposal on 26.07.2016. Considering the facts that this Court, while questioning the vires of the Ordinance had granted an interim order and, in order to balance the equity, we direct the respondents that they may proceed with the absorption of part time teachers on such vacancies, which have not been notified and advertised by the Commission upto the date of issuance of the Amending Act, 2014.” 13. Acting upon the aforesaid interim order, following Government Order was issued by the State Government on 30.8.2016:- ^^izs"kd] e/kq tks'kh] fo'ks"k lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] 28 funs'kd] mPp f'k{kk] m0iz0] bykgkcknA mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ % fnukad % 30 vxLr] 2016 fo"k;% fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&22349@2016 Mk0 nhukukFk ;kno o vU; cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27&05&2016 ds vuqikyu esa ekuns; dk vkesyu fd;s tkus ds laca/k esA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i=kad&fMxzh vFkZ&1¼fof/k½@8690@2016&17 fnukad 14&06&2016 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa ftlds }kjk ekuns; f'k{kdksa ds vkesyu gsrq dfri; fcUnqvksa ij ekxZ n'kZu iznku fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA 2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd d`i;k izdj.k esa fuEukuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh rRdky lqfuf'pr djkus dk d"V djsa%& ¼1½ ekuns; izoDrkvksa }kjk /kkfjr in ds vf/k;kfpr@foKkfir gksus dh n'kk esa mlh egkfo|ky; vFkok fdlh vU; egkfo|ky; esa fjDr in ij ftldk vf/k;kpu vkSj foKkiu fnukad 26&05&2014 rd ugha gqvk gS] ij vkesyu fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk;A ¼2½ ,sls in tks m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ esa foKkfir fd;s x;s gSa fdUrq ekeyk ek0 U;k;ky;ksa esa fopkjk/khu gksus (Sub-judice) gksus ds dkj.k p;u izfØ;k iwjh ugha gks ldh gS] mu inksa ij vkesyu u fd;k tk;A ¼3½ foKkiu la[;k&44 ,oa 45] m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2014 ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ¼26&05&2014½ ls iwoZ foKkfir gksus ds dkj.k ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqdze esa vkesyu dh dk;Zokgh u dh tk;A mDr inksa ij vkesyu gsrq ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa felysfu;'k vIyhds'ku nkf[ky dj DysfjfQds'ku izkIr fd;k tk;A ¼4½ ,sls ekuns; izoDrk ftudh fu;qfDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 07&04&1998 ds vUrxZr vuqeksnuksijkUr ftl in ij dh x;h Fkh ;fn ml in ij vk;ksx }kjk p;fur vH;FkhZ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj fy;k gS rFkk ekuns; f'k{kd ml in ij dk;Zjr u gksdj fdlh vU; fjDr in ij vU; egkfo|ky; esa funs'kky; ls vuqefr izkIr djus ds i'pkr dk;Zjr gSa] rks mUgsa m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh 29 /kkjk&31 bZ esa nh x;h 'krksZa ,oa izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu vkesfyr fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk;A c'krZs] mudh orZeku egkfo|ky; esa dk;Zjr gksus dh lsok gh vkaxf.kr dh tk;sxhA ¼5½ m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk&31 bZ esa nh x;h O;oLFkk lqLi"V gSA vr% vf/kfu;e dh O;oLFkk ds vkyksd esa vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djk;h tk;A^^ 14. A subsequent Government Order has also been issued on 7th of September, 2017, relying upon the same interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016, reiterating that absorption of teachers under Section 31-E of the Act would be only against unadvertised vacancy occurring till 26.5.2014 only. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 7.9.2017 is reproduced hereinafter:- ^^3& m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2006 dh /kkjk&31 bZ ,oa ;Fkk la'kksf/kr vf/kfu;e] 2014 ds izko/kkuksa ,oa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 22349@2016 Mk0 nhukukFk ;kno cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27&05&2016 ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 26&05&2014 rd vfoKkfir inksa ij 155 ekuns; f'k{kdksa dk vkesyu fd;k x;k gSA cSBd esa laKku esa yk;k x;k fd vf/kfu;e ls vkPNkfnr dfri; ekuns; f'k{kd vHkh Hkh vkesyu ls oafpr gS rFkk vkesyu gsrq vHkh vkSj in miyC/k gSA bl laca/k esa fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd m0iz0 mPprj f'k{kk lsok vk;ksx ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2014 ds ykxw gksus dh frfFk 26&05&2014 rd vfoKkfir inksa ij vo'ks"k ekuns; f'k{kdksa dks vkesfyr fd;s tkus gsrq fjfDr;ksa dh iqu% x.kuk@ijh{k.k funs'kd] mPp f'k{kk }kjk djkdj fjDr inksa dh lwpuk ,oa vf/kfu;e ls vkPNkfnr vo'ks"k ekuns; f'k{kdksa ds laca/k esa lwpuk rRdky 'kklu dks miyC/k djk;h tk;A^^ 15. While Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 was pending consideration before this Court, yet another amendment was made in Section 31-E of the Act, 1980, vide U.P. Act No. 38 of 2018. The cut-off-date for the purposes of absorption has been advanced by way of amendment, which is reproduced hereinafter:- “Subject to the provisions contained in Section 12 and 13, if any vacancy exists, which could not be filled, under the provisions of said sections, a teacher on honorarium who has been appointed in grant-in-aid college on or before March 29, 2011, in accordance with the provisions as specified under G.O. No. 467/Sattar-2-98-3(19)/93T.C, dated April 07, 1998 possessing educational qualifications determined by the State Government, working and receiving honorarium thereby from the State exchequer till the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act 2018, shall be absorbed in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2)” 16. The vires of Amending Act No. 38 of 2018 has been questioned by Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and others by filing Writ Petition No. 22209 of 2018. The vires of Amending Act No. 38 of 2018 has been questioned by Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and others by filing Writ Petition No. 22209 of 2018. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.2018 has been pleased to uphold the vires of the amending act by dismissing the writ petition after returning a specific finding that the amending act is not ultra-vires the provisions of the Act of 1980 or Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The issues that came up for adjudication in Dr. Deena Nath Yadav (supra) were crystallized in Paragraph 5 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we come to conclude that entire petition virtually questions the amendment on twin grounds; firstly, the provision is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as Sections 12 and 13 of Act, 1980 and ultra vires thereto; and secondly, the amending provision seek intends to override a judicial decision and nullify its effect and so is vitiated for malice in law.” 17. The first issue formulated for consideration in the case of Dr. Deena Nath Yadav (supra) has been answered in Paragraph 16 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:- “16. Now testing the first argument on the above settled legal position, we find that in the present case the legislature has absolute competence to legislate over the subject matter and this court in earlier round of litigation, having not found insertion of new section 31-E to be illegal even in the backdrop of the decision of the court in Malvika Shekhar v. Director of Higher Education, U.P. and others, (2004) 1 AWC 321 , we cannot now sit in appeal over the ratio of the judgment in Anurag Tripathi (supra) to hold that the impugned amendment has invalidated a previous law. We must not forget that legislative function can never be confused with executive function. Judicial review of exercise of delegated power is tested on the basis procedure prescribed and the limitations imposed under the principal Act as to how much and manner in which power can be exercised by the delegated authority. We must not forget that legislative function can never be confused with executive function. Judicial review of exercise of delegated power is tested on the basis procedure prescribed and the limitations imposed under the principal Act as to how much and manner in which power can be exercised by the delegated authority. The guidelines given under a statute, therefore, becomes an automatic scale to judge an action by the courts but where legislature with elected representative of people as per the constitutional scheme and given polity, exercises its power in the welfare of the people, the bona fides of such act, in our considered opinion, is beyond the scope of judicial review unless of course, any amending or validating Act tends to destroy basic structure of the Constitution. No such argument has been advanced nor, do we find any such pleadings in the writ petition. Right to employment does not partake the characteristics of any fundamental right. Right of consideration in public employment is there, provided there is any selection process underway and the amending provision is intended to overreach the same negating even right to consideration, but we do not find any such case here either. Therefore, we are not impressed by the argument that the amending provisions are ultra vires the Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, 1980 or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 18. The second limb of argument advanced in the case of Dr. Deena Nath Yadav (supra) has been answered in Paragraphs 17 to 20, which are also extracted hereinafter:- “17. Now coming to the second argument that while earlier testing the initial provision of Section 31-E, the Division Bench in Anurag Tripathi (supra) had observed that in future the legislature will not repeat this act of absorption and, therefore, the amendment is vitiated for malice in law as it tries to negate the directions contained in a Judicial verdict, we are afraid as such an interpretation of the legislative competence is not conceived of in our constitutional philosophy. While the directions of the Court may be suggestive in nature but the field in which the legislature is competent to enact the provision, the Court of law, in our considered opinion, cannot hold the provision to be ultra vires merely because it negatives the certain directions of the Court. While the directions of the Court may be suggestive in nature but the field in which the legislature is competent to enact the provision, the Court of law, in our considered opinion, cannot hold the provision to be ultra vires merely because it negatives the certain directions of the Court. No thumb rule can be adopted to guide as to how and when the legislature would exercise its power. We have the example that the State of Andhra Pradesh had initially enacted Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, keeping in view the growing dissatisfaction amongst several thousand unemployed persons including oppressed class in terms of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes and OBCs, who, though were registered with the Employment Exchange but were not able to compete the selection for appointment against the sanctioned posts due to on going process of entry through daily wage. So while, on one hand, the State Government tried to streamline the services of the existing staff, on the other hand, it also tried to restrict appointment on temporary basis against the sanctioned posts and to ensure that the appointment are made through some recruiting agency. But in spite of introducing Section 7 which restricted appointment, the State Government under compulsion of the pressure of the vested interest issued Government Order dated 27th April, 1994 incorporating the policy of regularization of the services of those appointed on daily wages or muster role or consolidated pay who had worked continuously for five years and were continuing as on 25th November, 1993 the date of enforcement of the 1994 Act. But the ambiguity and to say so lack of technical nicety in language of Government Order dated 22th April, 1994, the issue of regularization resulted in enormous litigation burdening the public exchequer unnecessarily. The one time measure for regularization became a continuing process of regularization. Resultantly, in the case of District Collector/ Chairman and others v. M.L. Singh and others, (2009) 8 SCC 480 , in a very short order, the Apex Court vide para 3 of the order directed thus: “3. As regards payment of wages there is no dispute between the parties that the same have to be paid from the date of regularisation. As regards payment of wages there is no dispute between the parties that the same have to be paid from the date of regularisation. Insofar as regularisation is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly directed that on the basis of Notification GOMs No. 212, the respondent employees shall be regularized with effect from the date or dates, they completed five years' continuous service. It is, however, made clear that the other conditions laid down in the said GOMs No. 212 will have to be satisfied for the purpose of regularisation.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Consequently, the State legislature brought amendment Act No. 27 of 1998 and thereby inserted new provision 7-A which runs as under: “7-A. Abatement of claims.-(1) Notwithstanding any government order, judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, no person shall claim for regularisation of service under the first proviso of Section 7 as it was incorporated by the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Act 3 of 1998). (2) No suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court, tribunal or other authority against the Government or any person or other authority whatsoever for regularisation of services and all such pending proceedings shall abate forthwith. (3) No court shall enforce any decree or order directing the Government or any person or other authority whatsoever for regularisation of services.” 19. The daily wages employees and similarly placed employees questioned the amending Act. So, the point for consideration before the learned Single Judge of the High Court was whether the amendment made in 1994 Act have the effect of nullifying and overriding the judgment of the Apex Court in District Collector/ Chairman and others v. M.L. Singh and others, (2009) 8 SCC 480 and whether Section 7-A inserted vide amending Act No. 27 of 1998 brought by the State legislature amounted to an encroachment of courts' power and judicial review. While learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench allowed the State appeal. Against the said judgment S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court upheld the provision and rejected the argument that by amending provision of the Act the legislature had virtually played a fraud on the decision and directives and mandate contained in the orders of the Court. The Division Bench allowed the State appeal. Against the said judgment S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court upheld the provision and rejected the argument that by amending provision of the Act the legislature had virtually played a fraud on the decision and directives and mandate contained in the orders of the Court. The Division Bench while upholding the amending provision observed that while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in terms of power of judicial review over the legislation would no invalidate an Act on the ground of malice or otherwise, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that the legislature is competent to enact a provision with prospective and retrospective effect to provide for a cut-off date which in its wisdom seems to be correct keeping in mind the object with which the amendment is introduced and object sought to be achieved. The Court repelled the argument that the inserting of 7-A by way of amendment vide Act No. 27 of 1998, there was an encroachment of its power of judicial review. While holding so, the Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgments of three Judge Bench in the case of Mylapore Club v. State of T.N., (2005) 12 SCC 752. The Apex Court in its judgment in Manjula Bhashini vide paragraphs 78, 79, 80, 81 and 90 observed thus: “78. In Mylapore Club v. State of T.N., (2005) 12 SCC 752, a three-Judge Bench examined the validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 2 of 1996). By Section 2 of the 1996 Act, Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was amended and Clause (f) was added providing for exemptions for tenancies of land owned by religious institutions and religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. By Section 3, it was declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by such a religious institution or religious charity, which was being exempted from the operation of the Act pending before any court or other authority, would stand abated and all rights and privileges conferred by the extension of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 would cease and would become unenforceable. However, a proviso was added to the effect that nothing contained in Section 3 shall be deemed to render invalid, any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed had been executed or satisfied in full before the date of the coming into force of the amending Act. 79. In Mylapore Club case (supra) it was argued on behalf of the tenant Club that the amendment made by Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 2 of 1996, whereby exemption was granted to certain tenancies was not in consonance with the object of the parent Act. It was further contented that Section 3 of the amending Act which provided for certain pending proceedings to abate was a legislative act to put an end to a judicial proceedings and the same was clearly unconstitutional. 80. While rejecting the first argument, the Court observed: “The power to legislate is a plenary power vested in the legislature and unless those who challenge the legislation clearly establish that their fundamental rights under the Constitution are affected or that the legislature lacked legislative competence, they would not succeed in their challenge to the enactment brought forward in the wisdom of the legislature. Conferment of a right to claim the benefit of a statute, being not a vested right, the same could be withdrawn by the legislature which made the enactment. It is open to the legislature to bring in a law that has retrospective operation. That position is not disputed. When it affects vested rights or accrued rights, that question will have to be considered in that context. But the right to take advantage of a statute has been held to be not an accrued right. It could not be said that Amendment Act 2 of 1996 lacked either legislative competence or that it is unconstitutional. It is a matter for the legislature to balance the object of the Parent Act with the object of protecting the rights of religious institutions and religious charities and on the basis of the material available to the legislature, the decision to exempt the buildings of such religious institutions and religious charities has been taken.” 81. It is a matter for the legislature to balance the object of the Parent Act with the object of protecting the rights of religious institutions and religious charities and on the basis of the material available to the legislature, the decision to exempt the buildings of such religious institutions and religious charities has been taken.” 81. While rejecting the second argument, the Court observed: “By Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996 impugned herein, which is in pari materia with Section 9 of the amending Act of 1960, the legislature had intended that pending proceedings should be affected. Even otherwise, once the applicability of the Act itself is withdrawn, no relief can be granted to a person who could have been or who was earlier a beneficiary under that enactment, after such withdrawal. Here, the section provides that even if some steps have been taken pursuant to the claim by the tenant under Section 9 of the Parent Act, the proceeding cannot be continued in view of the exemption enacted in favour of the institutions. Reading Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996, it could not be said that it is a legislative intervention with a judicial decision. The proviso to Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996 has saved concluded transactions based on judicial adjudications. All that the said Section 3 does is to make it explicit that the amendment is intended to apply to pending proceedings. In the context of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, unless it is shown that any right has accrued to the claimant under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, such a provision making it clear that the Act could not be applied any more to pending proceedings is not in any way invalid or incompetent. Unless the proceedings have concluded and the rights of the landlord have passed to the tenant, no right accrues to the tenant. He is only in the process of acquiring a right, the process having been set in motion at his instance. When pending proceedings are affected by an amendment, it is open to the legislature to provide that the said process cannot continue. That alone has been done by Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996, therefore there is no merit in challenge to Section 3 of the amending Act. “ 90. When pending proceedings are affected by an amendment, it is open to the legislature to provide that the said process cannot continue. That alone has been done by Section 3 of amending Act 2 of 1996, therefore there is no merit in challenge to Section 3 of the amending Act. “ 90. The question whether Section 7A of Act No. 27 of 1998 amounts to an encroachment on the court's power on judicial review is answered in negative in view of the three-Judge Bench judgment in Mylapore Club v. State of T.N. (supra) and we respectfully follow the ratio of that judgment. Even otherwise, in view of the interpretation placed by us on the policy of regularisation contained in first proviso to Section 7 of the 1994 Act, the question of abatement of claims etc. has become purely academic. “ 20. Even otherwise, we do not find anything suggestive of any substance in the argument that legislature has acted quite arbitrarily in the matter nor, do we find that the amending provision can be held to be bad for any legislative incompetence. Regularisation is always one time measure to absorb the employees working for long and if in its wisdom, the legislature has carved out an exception to the general rule to absorb the working employees, the same is not questionable. We do not only presume the amending Act to be valid but even while testing its validity on the arguments advanced in view of our discussions hereinabove in this judgment, we do not find anything to hold it ultra vires the provisions of Act, 1980 or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 19. After the challenge laid to the validity of U.P. Act No. 38 of 2018 has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.11.2018, the same petitioner who had challenged the vires of 2014 amendment also opted not to press his earlier Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016. This petition has accordingly been dismissed, as not pressed in view of the circumstances, mentioned above, vide following order passed on 30.11.2018:- “This petition alongwith bunch of other matters have been assigned to this Court under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The matters were heard on 29.11.2018 as also today. This petition has accordingly been dismissed, as not pressed in view of the circumstances, mentioned above, vide following order passed on 30.11.2018:- “This petition alongwith bunch of other matters have been assigned to this Court under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The matters were heard on 29.11.2018 as also today. Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 has stated before us that petitioners are no longer desirous of pressing their petitions in view of the fact that a subsequent challenge laid to the amended provisions of Section 31 (E) of the Act of 1980 has failed with dismissal of Writ Petition No. 22209 of 2018. In view of the statement made, Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed. “ 20. It is in this backdrop that the issues raised in these writ petitions require determination by this Court. 21. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Gajendra Pratap, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocates, Sri Shailendra, Sri Man Mohan Singh and Ms. Arti Raje, Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Padmakar Pandey, Smt. Durga Tiwari, Sri Ashok Kumar Chaubey, Ms. Rekha Pundir, Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 22. Most of the writ petitions in this bunch of cases have been filed by teachers appointed on part time basis who are being paid honorarium and are seeking absorption under Section 31-E of the Act, 1980. Except for a handful of persons, most of the petitioners have already been absorbed under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980. Their grievance essentially is that while absorbing them they have been placed in an affiliated College other than the College where they were appointed and working as part time teacher. This appears to have been done in view of the restraint order passed by this Court on 27.5.2016 in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 as well as the consequential Government Orders issued on 30.8.2016 and 7.9.2017. It is alleged by the petitioners that since earlier vacancy advertised vide Advertisement Nos. 37 & 38 have been quashed by this Court in Dr. It is alleged by the petitioners that since earlier vacancy advertised vide Advertisement Nos. 37 & 38 have been quashed by this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case (supra) and subsequent advertisement No. 44 & 45 stands withdrawn, vide Government Order dated 21st May, 2015, the vacancies covered by these notifications, therefore, ought not to be excluded for the purpose of petitioners' absorption, particularly as the interim order dated 27.5.2016 stands discharged with the dismissal of writ petition itself on 30.11.2018. The submission is that the interim order emerges with the previous order. In the event the writ petition is dismissed, the effect is that no interim order was passed. It is urged that after the amendment of Section31-E, in the year 2014 and 2018, the absorption cannot be restricted to unadvertised vacancy existing upto 26.5.2014 only. 23. Before proceeding to examine the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, it would be worth noticing, at this stage, the writ petition filed by one Dr. Rakesh Kumar i.e. Writ Petition No. 22214 of 2018, where the relief claimed is as under:- “a. To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State authorities not to implement the amendment dated 10.9.2018 in Section 31-E The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 in view of the pendency of Full Bench involving the issue of reservation as the posts in question, sought to be regularized, are also the subject matter of the Full Bench. b. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from regularizing the adhoc appointees against the posts which are subject matter of the Full Bench and against which the selection has already been made, result declared and petitioners have already given placement, till the final decision is taken by the Full Bench.” 24. The petitioner in writ petition 22214 of 2018 claims to have been selected pursuant to Advertisement No. 42 of 2008 but he has not yet been appointed on account of a restraint order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 51212 of 2010 (Dr. Archana Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). Interim protection appears to have been granted by this Court in Dr. Archana Mishra's case after taking note of the submission that the advertisement no. Archana Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). Interim protection appears to have been granted by this Court in Dr. Archana Mishra's case after taking note of the submission that the advertisement no. 42 of 2008 was in teeth of the law laid down by this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case. The matter in Dr. Archana Mishra (supra) was referred to a larger bench in order to examine the question whether the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case is correct or not? 25. A Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Archana Mishra's case (supra) has already answered the reference by holding that the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case is correct, in view of the subsequent fact that a Civil Appeal filed by the State before the Apex Court against the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case has already failed with its dismissal and the judgment of this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case has merged with the judgment of Apex Court. 26. On the factual issue relating to advertisement no. 42 of 2008 it is pointed out on behalf of petitioners in connected writ petitions that none of the petitioners of this bunch, working on honorarium basis, have staked any claim for absorption against a vacancy covered by Advertisement No. 42 of 2008. Such assertion of fact is not disputed by anyone. Prayer made by Sri Shailendra, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Dr. Rakesh Kumar's case for consolidating this bunch of petitions with the pending writ petition of Dr. Archana Mishra (supra) is, therefore, not liable to be accepted. However, the issues raised in the petition of Dr. Rakesh Kumar and others would be required to be dealt with. 27. The submission urged by Mr. Shailendra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Rakesh Kumar and others is that since absorption under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 is subject to the provisions of Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980 and has to be made against a post earmarked for direct recruitment by virtue of sub-section (2), the absorption would have to be subject to the provisions of the reservation Act of 1994. It is contended that exercise to determine vacancy in affiliated Degree Colleges as per the judgment in Dr. It is contended that exercise to determine vacancy in affiliated Degree Colleges as per the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case, college-wise and subject-wise is yet to be completed and, therefore, if absorption is allowed to be undertaken, at this stage, it would adversely affect the enforcement of reservation laws, inasmuch as, posts meant for reserved category candidates might get filled with unreserved category candidates. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioners in Dr. Rakesh Kumar and others (supra) would be contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1994. 28. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by the Director, Higher Education, stating that the State is proceeding to implement Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 by proceeding only against unadvertised vacancies, in view of interim directions dated 27.5.2016 issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016, and the consequential Government Orders dated 30.8.2016 and 7.9.2017 issued subsequent to the aforesaid interim order. It is submitted by Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State that the State can have no objection in proceeding to consider adjustment of petitioners in their parent college provided unadvertised vacancies exists in such Institution. It is also submitted that the State has substantially carried out its exercise to determine posts category-wise, in different Colleges by applying the rules of reservation as per the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case and fresh advertisements for recruitment is proposed to be issued shortly. Posts which were included in previous advertisements but have either been quashed on account of it being in violation of the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case or withdrawn by the State would be included in the proposes advertisement. Contention is that any direction by this Court, at this stage, for petitioners' claim to be considered for absorption against such vacancies would interfere with the roster and create enumerable difficulties in filling up the vacant posts. It is also urged that reservation laws since were not applied at the time of engaging teachers on honorarium basis, as such, compliance of reservation laws would not be warranted at the stage of absorption, particularly as the considerations for absorption are entirely distinct. 29. It is also urged that reservation laws since were not applied at the time of engaging teachers on honorarium basis, as such, compliance of reservation laws would not be warranted at the stage of absorption, particularly as the considerations for absorption are entirely distinct. 29. From the respective arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting parties in the backdrop of statutory scheme as well as previous judgments operating in the field following issues require consideration in this bunch of writ petitions:- (i) Whether provisions of the Reservation Act of 1994 would apply and require implementation at the stage of absorption of honorarium teachers working in Private Aided Graduate/Post Graduate Degree Colleges? (ii) Whether absorption under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 can be restricted only to such vacancies which have not yet been notified to the Commission and/or are yet to be advertised? (iii) Another related issue would be as to whether the vacancies previously advertised, in respect of which advertisements have either been withdrawn by the State or have been quashed by this Court can be treated as unadvertised vacancies, so as to consider absorption of honorarium teachers against such vacancies? (iv) What would be the desirable and permissible course open for absorption of honorarium teachers in the facts of the present case? 30. Before adverting to the specific issues formulated for consideration in this bunch of petitions certain admitted facts are required to be noticed at the outset. The engagement of petitioners as teachers on honorarium basis is in accordance with the Government Order dated 7.4.1998. The fact that they have continued to work for long is also not disputed. Their engagement was against substantive vacancy and that they possess requisite qualification for appointment to the post of teacher, as prescribed by University Grants Commission are also undisputed. It is also not disputed that the provisions of the Reservation Act of 1994 were not complied with, at the time of their initial engagement. Even otherwise the question as to what would constitute the unit for applying reservation under the Act of 1994 was not correctly determined, by then, and it was only with the judgment of this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case that the law has been settled in the year 2008. The concept of subject-wise and college-wise roster has been introduced only thereafter. Vishwajeet Singh's case that the law has been settled in the year 2008. The concept of subject-wise and college-wise roster has been introduced only thereafter. It is in this background that the absorption of honorarium teachers working in Private Aided Graduate/Post Graduate Degree Colleges needs to be examined. 31. Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 was introduced for the first time in the year 2006 vide U.P. Act No. 42 of 2006. Its validity was upheld by this Court in Anurag Tripathi's case (supra). The provision of Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 was interpreted to mean that only those vacancies could be considered for absorption which were not notified and advertised as per Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980. This was so as the vacancies once notified and advertisement would not fall within the expression 'cannot be filled' under Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980. The provision for absorption under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 was amended in 2014 and again in 2018. By the 2014 amendment the expression 'cannot be filled' has been substituted by the expression 'could not be filled'. The legislature has once again amended Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 vide U.P. Act No. 38 of 2018. The vires of this amending Act has been upheld by this Court in the subsequent writ Petition No. 22209 of 2018, Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The earlier writ petition filed by Dr. Deena Nath Yadav in the year 2016 has thereafter been got dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.11.2018. Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 has been declared to be intra-vires the 1980 Act and is otherwise not found to be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 32. Although in one of the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition 22214 of 2018, Dr. Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, the amending Act is sought to be indirectly questioned by the petitioner. A prayer is made not to implement its provisions but the provision itself is not assailed. No writ can be issued, as is prayed, not to implement a legislative provision, particularly, when its vires stands upheld by this Court. State of U.P. and others, the amending Act is sought to be indirectly questioned by the petitioner. A prayer is made not to implement its provisions but the provision itself is not assailed. No writ can be issued, as is prayed, not to implement a legislative provision, particularly, when its vires stands upheld by this Court. The provision contained in Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 for absorption of honorarium teachers working in Private Aided Graduate/Post Graduate Degree Colleges as provided in Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 would, therefore, have to be implemented. 33. The justification for introducing a provision relating to absorption of employee in the relevant service rule is the moral obligation of a model employer to provide security to persons having no tenure and yet working on a precarious basis for a long time (See: M.A.M.C. Employees Unity Centre Vs. M.A.M.C. Limited, 1991 3 SLR 766). The considerations warranting absorption of teachers working in graduate/post graduate degree colleges is to provide succor to the teacher who has been continuing for fairly long time without grant of benefits otherwise attached to the post, notwithstanding the fact that such teacher possesses the requisite qualifications and is working against a sanctioned post. 34. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition of Dr. Rakesh Kumar submits that absorption is required to be made against vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment, by virtue of Section 31-E (2) of the Act of 1980, and, therefore, provisions of the reservation Act of 1994 would be applicable at the stage of absorption also. It is submitted that since the exercise to work out vacancies for different category of candidates is under process as per the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case, the absorption exercise must be made to wait till its outcome. Contention is that otherwise the posts might get filled with absorption thereby adversely affecting the candidates of reserved category. 35. Sri Ashok Khare, on the other hand submits that reservation laws would not be applicable in the matter of absorption. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Parul Debnath and others, (2009) 14 SCC 173 . 36. 35. Sri Ashok Khare, on the other hand submits that reservation laws would not be applicable in the matter of absorption. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Parul Debnath and others, (2009) 14 SCC 173 . 36. As already observed, the object of absorbing services of an employee not regularly appointed is to provide succor to the distressed employee, who has continued for fairly long time without grant of benefits otherwise attached to the post against which he is working. The considerations that prevail for absorption are therefore clearly distinct. The provisions that regulate direct recruitment, therefore, cannot be made strictly applicable while absorbing an employee. In case of absorption certain conditions, which are otherwise applicable in the case of direct recruitment are relaxed, including applicability of reservation laws also. 37. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Training has issued a Office Memorandum, dated 25th of June, 2010, clarifying the applicability of rules of reservation in services under the Government of India. Clause 6 of the Office Memorandum, aforesaid, provides for exemptions from reservation. Clause 6.1 of the Office Memorandum is relevant for the present purposes and is reproduced hereinafter:- “6.1 Reservations do not apply to posts filled by deputation or absorption, but whenever a Ministry/Department/Attached Office/Subordinate Office etc. propose to depute in public interest officers serving in or under them to a post in or under another Ministry/Department etc., the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC employees serving in or under the Ministry/Department etc. concerned, who are eligible to be sent on deputation should also be considered along with other eligible employees for such deputation. The Ministries/Departments under whose control the posts to be filled by deputation or absorption arise should also, in turn, while selecting persons for such post(s) to be filled by deputation or absorption, duly consider the cases of eligible Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class employees whose names have been forwarded by other Ministries/Departments alongwith the other eligible employees, for appointment on deputation or absorption to those posts. Where the number of posts to be filled on deputation or absorption by any employing Ministry or Office is fairly substantial, the employing Ministry/Head of Office concerned should endeavour to see that a fair proportion of such posts are filled by employees belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBCs, subject of course, to availability from the feeder categories of qualified persons belonging to these communities.” 38. The website of the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, also contains a brochure on reservation for SC, ST & Other Backward Classes in government service. Chapter - II of the Brochure specifies the scope of reservation. Clause 2.22 provides for non-applicability of reservation in employment of posts under the Central Government. It also specifically excludes applicability of reservation in absorption as per the office memorandum dated 21st January 1978. For ready reference Clause 2.22 (v) is reproduced hereinafter:- “Non-Applicability of Reservation 2.22 Reservations do not apply to: (v) Deputation/Absorption. [O.M.No.36012/7/77-Estt(SCT) dated 21/01/1978]” 39. Although, the office memorandum issued by the Central Government may not strictly be applicable in respect of the posts belonging to the State Government, yet, the principles contained therein can be taken note of and be of persuasive value to determine the question as to whether reservation laws would be applicable in the matter of absorption, particularly when the parent statute i.e. the Act of 1980 is silent on this aspect. 40. A specific stand has been taken on behalf of the State Government by the Director, Higher Education, in para 9 of the affidavit, dated 28th of January, 2019, which is extracted hereinafter:- “That it is humbly submitted that reservation policy has not been followed at the time of appointment of honorarium lecturers as per the terms of order dated 23.07.1999 of the State Government, therefore, the reservation in the absorption of honorarium lecturers is not being applied.” 41. The categorical stand of the State, taken through the affidavit of Director of Higher Education is that reservation is not to be applied while absorbing teachers engaged on honorarium basis in private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges. A previous Government Order dated 23rd July, 1999 has also been annexed which specifically provides that reservation laws will not be applicable while engaging part time lecturers such as petitioners. 42. A previous Government Order dated 23rd July, 1999 has also been annexed which specifically provides that reservation laws will not be applicable while engaging part time lecturers such as petitioners. 42. In case rules of reservation are made applicable while implementing Section 31-E of the 1980 Act for absorption then enumerable difficulties would arise, inasmuch as, absorption would be dependent upon availability of post in the category to which the candidate in question belongs. It might then cause discriminatory consequences as some of the teachers covered by Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 would get absorbed while others may be left out, for want of availability of post in respective category. This would be so, notwithstanding the fact that initial engagement of all part time teachers was against substantive vacancy and the reservation laws were not applicable. The very object of absorption would then get frustrated. The absorption of teachers under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980, otherwise addresses a particular human aspect for the teachers who have continued for sufficiently long time without receiving the benefits attached to the post held by them and it would not be just and equitable to deny them benefit of absorption on the ground that it violates the rule of reservation contained in the Act of 1994. The rules of reservation otherwise would be open to be applied, while undertaking direct recruitment, against the available or future vacancies. The plea, in that regard, cannot thus be accepted. 43. The issue of applicability of reservation laws in the matter of absorption fell for consideration before the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Parul Debnath and others, (2009) 14 SCC 173 . Following observations contained in para 22 of the judgment is apposite in the facts of the present case and is, therefore, reproduced hereinafter:- “22. Firstly, we are in agreement with Mr. Das and the Division Bench of the High Court that the intention of the earlier Division Bench while disposing of the two writ petitions filed by Manoj Kumar Singh and others was that the Scheme was to be framed not only in terms of the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, but also in the light of the views expressed in Pantha Chatterjee's case (supra). A glance at the Scheme framed makes it very clear that the same had not been framed in terms of the directions given by the Division Bench and also this Court and certainly not in keeping with the decision in Pantha Chatterjee's case (supra). As has been very rightly pointed out in the judgment under appeal, it was the intention, both of the Tribunal and the High Court, as well as this Court, that the respondent Home Guards were to be absorbed in the regular establishment of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and no new appointment was required to be made. It was, therefore, the further intention of the Tribunal as well as the Courts that the absorption of the eligible respondents were to be at one go and not in phases, as has been sought to be suggested in the proposed Scheme. In fact, such a procedure had neither been directed by the Tribunal nor the High Court, nor this Court in Pantha Chatterjee's case (supra). As a result, the question of 100% reservation would not arise since the absorption of the respondents did not amount to new appointments which could have given rise to the question of reservation. In our view, the Division Bench has very correctly observed that the intention of the Tribunal and the Courts was that the benefits to be given to the writ petitioners (respondents herein) should be extended to all of them uniformly and without making any discrimination. The very fact that some of the respondents would be regularized, while the others would have to wait till the next vacancies arose or the possibility that some of the candidates who were otherwise eligible, might not even be absorbed, was never the intention when the directions were given to frame a Scheme for absorption of the respondents. In our view, such a course of action appears to have been adopted to negate the effect of the earlier orders so that the respondents as a whole were deprived of the benefit of absorption and the further benefit of 'equal pay for equal work', as was indicated in Pantha Chatterjee's case (supra). In our view, such a course of action appears to have been adopted to negate the effect of the earlier orders so that the respondents as a whole were deprived of the benefit of absorption and the further benefit of 'equal pay for equal work', as was indicated in Pantha Chatterjee's case (supra). As a direct consequence of the disparity in the pay structure of the respondents, who were to be absorbed in stages, their post-retiral benefits would be affected and would not be uniform, which was also not intended when directions were given for framing of Scheme to absorb the said respondents.” 44. In light of the observations of the Apex Court in Parul Debnath's case (supra) and the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that rules of reservation would not be applicable while undertaking an exercise to absorb part time teachers engaged on honorarium basis in private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges. Rules of reservation would thus not be an impediment in implementing Section 31-E of the 1980 Act. 45. This takes the Court to the second issue i.e. whether absorption under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 can be restricted only to vacancies which have not been notified to the Commission and/or are yet to be advertised? 46. The issue has arisen primarily on account of the use of the language employed by the legislature while introducing Section 31-E itself. Section 31-E of 1980 Act, as was originally introduced vide Amending Act No. 42 of 2006 provided for absorption of teachers working in private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges, possessing educational qualification determined by the State Government, receiving honorarium, who have completed minimum of three academic sessions and were working till the commencement of amending Act No. 42 of 2006. It was in the context of this provision that this Court in Anurag Tripathi's case (supra) observed that absorption would be considered against such substantive vacancies which were not advertised till the enforcement of Act No. 46 of 2006, as the vacancy already advertised would not have fallen in the category of vacancy which cannot be filled. Absorption was permitted under the statute only against vacancy which cannot be filled under Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980. A vacancy already advertised under Section 12, therefore, would obviously fall within the expression which cannot be filled. 47. Absorption was permitted under the statute only against vacancy which cannot be filled under Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980. A vacancy already advertised under Section 12, therefore, would obviously fall within the expression which cannot be filled. 47. The expression which cannot be filled however stood substituted vide Amending Act No. 22 of 2014 by the expression could not be filled. It is the effect of this amendment which needs to be examined. 48. The observation of this Court in Anurag Tripathi (supra) restricting absorption only against posts which had not yet been advertised, in view of the statutory provision existing then, would cease to have any applicability in the changed statutory regime. The prohibition necessitated on account of use of expression which cannot be filled would not be warranted after the introduction of Amending Act No. 22 of 2014. 49. Absorption of a teacher under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 would ordinarily be against a post of the cadre in which the teacher is working. The rules of reservation for its application in the cadre of teachers of private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges was examined by this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case and it was clearly held that unit for applying reservation would be the subject in a College. The cadre, therefore, would be limited to the subject in the College concerned. The appointing authority of the teacher is the Committee of Management of the Institution concerned and in the absence of any provision in the statute the services of such teacher cannot be shifted to a different Institution. That being the position, the absorption of a teacher would ordinarily be within the aforesaid cadre itself and not beyond it. 50. Absorption, in the past, however, was allowed even beyond the cadre, as the available vacancies within the cadre were not taken note of for absorption once such vacancy stood advertised. This apparently was due to the language initially employed in Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 and also due to lack of clarity on the aspect of cadre itself. The direction of this Court in Anurag Tripathi's case, issued in the context of unamended provision justified such acts of absorption beyond the cadre, but, after challenge to the amended provisions of Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 having failed, the situation would not remain the same. The direction of this Court in Anurag Tripathi's case, issued in the context of unamended provision justified such acts of absorption beyond the cadre, but, after challenge to the amended provisions of Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 having failed, the situation would not remain the same. While absorptions already made beyond the cadre may not be open to be questioned, unless already challenged, the same cannot be allowed to be challenged in the existing current statutory dispensation. 51. It may also be noticed, at this stage, that amending Act No. 22 of 2014 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 and while entertaining such challenge, a Division Bench on 27.5.2016 restrained the State from considering absorption of part time teachers engaged on honorarium basis against advertised vacancies. The import of the amending Act since was sub-judice before this Court in Dr. Deena Nath Yadav's case (supra) the position, as it stood prior to enforcement of Amending Act No. 22 of 2014 alone was allowed to exist. 52. The State Government, accordingly, permitted absorption to be carried out only against unadvertised vacancies. The Government Order dated 30.8.2016 as also the Government Order dated 7.9.2017 (already extracted above) appear to be in compliance with the enunciation of law by this Court in Anurag Tripathi's case (supra) as also the interim order dated 27.5.2016 passed in the case of Dr. Deena Nath Yadav. 53. The scenario, however, stands altered on account of the judgment delivered by this Court in Dr. Deena Nath Yadav and 25 others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 22209 of 2018, wherein the challenge to the vires of Amending Act No. 38 of 2018 has failed. The amending Acts have been held to be intra-vires the Act of 1980 and Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Following such adjudication, the earlier writ petition of same petitioner Dr. Deena Nath Yadav No. 22349 of 2016 has been got dismissed as not pressed. The observations of this Court, relying upon the un-amended Section 31-E of the Act of 1980, limiting absorption only to unadvertised vacancy, would thus no longer be available, to oppose the absorption of honorarium teachers working in the private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges with the State. 54. The observations of this Court, relying upon the un-amended Section 31-E of the Act of 1980, limiting absorption only to unadvertised vacancy, would thus no longer be available, to oppose the absorption of honorarium teachers working in the private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges with the State. 54. Section 31-E, as modified vide Amending Act No. 22 of 2014 as also Amending Act No. 38 of 2018 would have to be given a free hand. There would be no occasion for this Court to put any fetters on the plain language employed in the statute itself. 55. Section 31-E of the 1980 Act, as it stands after its amendment vide U.P. Act No. 22 o 2014 and 38 of 2018, provides that subject to Sections 12 & 13, if any vacancy exists, which could not be filled, under the provisions of said sections, a teacher on honorarium appointed in private aided college before 29.3.2011 as per Government Order dated 7.4.1998 and possessing educational qualifications determined by the State Government and receiving honorarium from State exchequer till the date of commencement of U.P. Act No. 38 of 2018 i.e. 10.9.2018 shall be absorbed in the manner prescribed under Sub-section (2). 56. The expression Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 12 & 13, if any vacancy exists, which could not be filled, under the provisions of said sections would therefore require a deeper scrutiny. Sections 12 & 13, already extracted above, provide for the procedure for appointment of teachers and recommendation of Commission. All appointments to the post of teacher in private aided graduate/post graduate degree colleges have otherwise to be made by way of direct recruitment. Absorption of a teacher, therefore, would be permissible who otherwise qualifies for absorption in terms of the provisions of Section 31-E of the 1980 Act, if there exists a vacancy. 57. Whether or not the vacancy is intimated to the Commission or is advertised therefore looses its significance, inasmuch as, posts so long as are not filled would be covered by the expression 'could not be filled'. So long as the post is not filled in terms of Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980, and the teacher is otherwise qualified in terms of Section 31-E of the 1980 Act, the absorption of such teacher would be permissible in law. So long as the post is not filled in terms of Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980, and the teacher is otherwise qualified in terms of Section 31-E of the 1980 Act, the absorption of such teacher would be permissible in law. On the second issue, therefore, the inevitable conclusion would be that absorption cannot be restricted to unadvertised vacancy. So long as a candidate is not selected for appointment in terms of Section 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980, the vacancy would continue to exist for absorption. It is only after selection is made against the advertised post that the post would be excluded from the purview of expression could not be filled. 58. The last issue that arises for determination is inextricably linked to the second issue which has already been deliberated upon. A vacancy which was earlier notified to the Commission and was subject matter of advertisement but is quashed by this Court would clearly be covered within the expression vacancy exists, which could not be filled. Once the advertisement published by the Commission stands quashed by this Court or is withdrawn by the Department/Commission the available vacancy would be available for being filled by absorption of eligible teacher in terms of Section 31-E of the Act of 1980. 59. In view of the discussions made herein above on the first three issues formulated for consideration, the last aspect requires examination. In light of the view expressed on the contentious issues raised before this Court in the present bunch of petitions the obvious course otherwise available for absorption would have been that all vacancies which have not yet been filled would be available for the purpose if the teacher otherwise satisfies the requirement for absorption under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980. This, however, may pose some obvious difficulty as would be noticed hereinafter. 60. Based upon the language used in un-amended Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 and till the vires of amending Act No. 22 of 2014 and 38 of 2018 has been upheld by this Court with the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016 and 22209 of 2018, an elaborate exercise towards absorption of teachers has already been undertaken by the State. This exercise has clearly excluded vacancies which have already been advertised. This exercise has clearly excluded vacancies which have already been advertised. Exclusion also included vacancies which were advertised and the advertisement was quashed by this Court or the advertisement itself has been withdrawn. This course has continued even after Amending Act No. 22 of 2014 got enforced, on account of interim order passed by this Court on 27.5.2016, as well as consequential Government Orders dated 30.8.2016 and 7.9.2017. 61. The affidavit filed by the Director, Higher Education, on 28th January, 2019, on behalf of the State, discloses that proceedings for absorption of honorarium teachers under Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 were completed vide order dated 18th May, 2017. A total number of 169 Lecturers have been absorbed. The absorption has been undertaken strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.5.2016 in Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2016. Out of these 169 absorbed lecturers, about 100 have actually joined at places other than where they were working on honorarium basis. 69 Lecturers have not joined and most of them have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition and interim protection has been granted to them. They are consequently continuing under interim orders of this Court against the vacancy on which they were initially engaged notwithstanding such vacancy getting advertised for regular recruitment. 62. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel has fairly stated that State can have no objection in considering claim of absorption of these 69 teachers also, in the same institution, provided vacancy exists and such vacancy has not been included in any advertisement. He further submits that as majority of absorbed teachers have already joined, it would not be equitable to consider their plea of absorption against the advertised vacancy, inasmuch as, the exercise already undertaken in the past would be required to be reopened, thereby creating a chaos. It is also urged that teachers who have already been absorbed against unadvertised vacancies would also claim parity and the ongoing recruitment exercised would be adversely affected. 63. In opposition to the aforesaid plea, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that those absorbed teachers who have already joined as per their order of absorption form a different class having acquiesced to the order of absorption, and no parity could be claimed by them. 63. In opposition to the aforesaid plea, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that those absorbed teachers who have already joined as per their order of absorption form a different class having acquiesced to the order of absorption, and no parity could be claimed by them. It is also urged that interim protection since has been granted to all remaining 69 absorbed teachers and they are continuing under the order of the Court, they are entitled to be absorbed against the vacancies which have not been filled so far. 64. Having given my anxious consideration to the respective pleas advanced on the last issue, I am of the view that those absorbed teachers who have already joined in terms of their absorption order constitute a separate and class distinct from the petitioners who have objected to their placement against other vacancies and beyond the cadre. Interim protection has otherwise been granted to most of these petitioners and they are continuing under interim orders of this Court against those very vacancies on which they got initially engaged as part time teachers on honorarium basis. Once the law is found to be with them, and considerations of equity also favour them on account of continuance under interim order of this Court, it would not be just to deny them relief only because others have joined or the State may have to partly amend the exercise already undertaken by them for absorption. 65. It is otherwise a matter of record that most of the advertisements that relates to present petitioners i.e. Advertisement No. 37 & 38 have already been quashed in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case (supra) and Advertisement No. 44 & 45 have been withdrawn by the State. An exercise to determine vacancy category-wise, by treating the subject in a college to be the unit for reservation is in the process of being worked out. Learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri J.N. Maurya, on the basis of instructions received from the officers of the Department of Higher Education, present in the Court, submits that the requisite exercise in terms of the direction issued in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case would be concluded within the next six to eight weeks. 66. Learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri J.N. Maurya, on the basis of instructions received from the officers of the Department of Higher Education, present in the Court, submits that the requisite exercise in terms of the direction issued in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case would be concluded within the next six to eight weeks. 66. The claim of sixty nine absorbed teachers are, therefore, directed to be considered against existing vacancies which have not yet been filled in terms of Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980, forthwith, preferably within four weeks, from today. The respondents shall take note of the aforesaid while determining vacancy in terms of the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case (supra). In the absence of any challenge by the remaining hundred absorbed teachers, who have already joined, the issue of their placement need not be interfered with. 67. Claim of all remaining teachers who are yet to be absorbed, notwithstanding the fact that their claim for absorption is covered in terms of Section 31-E of the Act of 1980 would be considered as per the observations made in this judgment. Their placement would be made against the post in the cadre in which they were already working, in light of the observations made above, against the vacancies which have not yet been filled as per Sections 12 & 13 of the Act of 1980 and no selections are made against it as yet, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The remaining vacancies would be advertised in terms of the law laid down in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case, at the earliest possible, in light of the stand taken before this Court. 68. In light of the observations and directions issued herein above, all the writ petitions are disposed of finally. No order is passed as to costs.