JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. Since common issue is involved in all these writ applications, as such with consent of the parties, all are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The grievance of all these petitioners are that though they were initially appointed on Class-III post on temporary basis pursuant to the decision of the respondent-University, but subsequently they were reverted into Class-IV post while modifying the earlier notification. 4. The facts of different writ applications are as follows:- (i) The petitioners of W.P.S. Nos. 449 of 2015 and 3525 of 2014 were initially appointed on Grade-III post on 06.10.2012 under memo No.930/2012; pursuant to the recommendation of compassionate committee report issued vide notification No. 110 of 2012 dated 07.07.2012 under the signature of Vice Chancellor of Sidhu Kanku Murmu University, Dumka. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the petitioners joined and worked without any hindrance. However, all of a sudden vide notification No. 41 of 2014, issued under the signature of Vice Chancellor of Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka vide memo No.SK/MU/R-G/509 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014, the earlier notification No.110 of 2012 dated 06.10.2012 was partially modified to the extent that petitioners were placed/appointment on Grade-IV post in the scale of Rs.2500-3200. (ii) The writ petitioners of W.P.S. No. 5818 of 2016 earlier moved before this court in W.P.S. No. 893 of 2015 raising the grievance that though they were working on Class-III post on Lower Division Clerk; however, the pay prescribed were not paid to them instead they were being paid in the scale of Grade-IV. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2016 directed the respondent university to consider the case of the petitioners with an observation to do scrutiny of the relevant service record taking into account as to whether the post on which they have been appointed are sanctioned or not by the State Government under the relevant provisions of Universities Act, 2000. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed and the same has been challenged in the present writ application. 5. Learned counsels representing the petitioners in W.P.S. No.449 of 2015 and 3525 of 2014 submits that the action of the respondents in reverting back the petitioners from Class-III to Class-IV post without giving any notice is bad in law, inasmuch as, no principles of natural justice has been followed. 5. Learned counsels representing the petitioners in W.P.S. No.449 of 2015 and 3525 of 2014 submits that the action of the respondents in reverting back the petitioners from Class-III to Class-IV post without giving any notice is bad in law, inasmuch as, no principles of natural justice has been followed. Learned counsels further contended that the ground taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is not applicable to compassionate appointment; as compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Learned counsels further contended that downgrading the pay scale amounts to punishment; as such, proper procedure should have been adopted before downgrading the petitioners in the lower pay scale. Learned counsels prayed for reconsideration of their respective cases as the petitioners are graduate and well trained and they have worked for almost two years in Class-III post. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.S. No.5818 of 2016 vehemently contended that the impugned order passed in the instant case is not tenable in the eye of law and further relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 469 . Para-3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:- “This Court issued a notice on 23-10-1990 and also directed that pending decision of this application she be permitted to continue her stay with her sons in the said quarter. The State has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 21,000/-as DCR Gratuity. She also received CGE Insurance amounting to Rs. 10,926/- and GPF amounting to Rs. 1717 of her deceased husband. She is also getting a Family Pension of Rs. 390 - per month, and as such, she cannot continue to stay in the quarter. This Court repeatedly requested the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India to consider the provisions that when an employee dies in harness, one of his legal representatives will be provided with an employment on compassionate ground. In spite of time being given repeatedly by this Court to consider this aspect of the matter and to take necessary instructions from Union of India, the counsel states before this Court that he has been instructed by the Government of India that it is not possible to provide her second son with an employment in the said press where her husband was previously employed. In a similar case, Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, Court has held as under: “………..It must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” Accordingly, we direct the Union of India to take immediate steps for employing the second son of the appellant in a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification within a period of one month from the date of this order. The appellant shall be permitted to stay in the said quarter where she is at present residing with the members of her family. The appellant will, however, withdraw her application filed before the Tribunal. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” 7. Learned counsels representing the petitioners in all these writ applications have specifically contended that Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 is not applicable in the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in compassionate appointment the dependent of deceased employees are to be given appointment after relaxing the normal rules and norms of the appointment; as such, the petitioners are entitled for their respective post of Group-III in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/-instead of the scale of 4th Grade employee. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-University while referring to Sub-Section (2) & (3) of Section 35 of Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as J.S.U Act) contended that no college shall appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of State Government and any such appointment shall be invalid and shall be terminated if the same is contrary to the aforesaid provisions. Learned counsel further contended that even otherwise, Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 clearly envisaged that the commission has to recommend for appointment of any general/technical/non-technical services under the State Government for all group ‘C’ post. Learned counsel further contended that even otherwise, Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 clearly envisaged that the commission has to recommend for appointment of any general/technical/non-technical services under the State Government for all group ‘C’ post. While referring the aforesaid provisions of law, he contended that now any Group-C post has to be done pursuant to the recommendation by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. He further submits that vide its letter No- 1526 dated 19-10-2010, the State Government communicated to the Registrars of all the Universities in Jharkhand its decision to fill up all Group ‘C’ posts in the Universities through the Staff Selection Commission. Through this letter, issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand ( HRDD in short), the Registrars of all the Universities in Jharkhand were directed to communicate to the HRDD the vacancy position of Group 'C' staff in the Universities to be filled up only on the recommendations of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. He further submits that in violation of the provisions of Sections 35(2) and 35(3) of the J.S.U Act, 2000, the respondent University did not communicate/sent to the HRDD; the vacancy positions with respect to Group 'C' posts in the University within the stipulated time or even thereafter; and the respondent University instead made some conditional/provisional appointments on Group 'C' posts on compassionate grounds including that of the petitioners in total violation of the statutory provisions and directions of the State Government as mentioned above. Perhaps, due to these reasons, the State Government did not approve these appointments made on compassionate ground and did not make any fund available to the Respondent University for payment to these appointees. He contended that in the event of non approval of these appointments made on Group ‘C’ posts and non receipt of any fund for payment from the State Government, the Respondent University had no option but to pay them from its internal resources for the time being. He contended that in the event of non approval of these appointments made on Group ‘C’ posts and non receipt of any fund for payment from the State Government, the Respondent University had no option but to pay them from its internal resources for the time being. But it could not go on for long and it was in the background of non approval of these appointments made on Class-III/Group-'C' grade posts on compassionate grounds by the State Government (HRDD) and non provision of any fund to the University for payment of salary to these appointees including the petitioner that the respondent University decided to appoint them against Class-IV/Group-D category vacancies afresh and seek approval of these new appointments from the State Government. 9. Before concluding his argument, learned counsel for the respondent-University contended that by going through the first notification dated 06.10.2012 issued under Memo No.110 of 2012; whereby the petitioners were appointed in Class-III post clearly stipulates that the said appointment was temporary for one year and clause 5 of the said notification clearly stipulates that the said temporary appointment shall be regularized only after approval from the State Government. While referring to the aforesaid clause, learned counsel further contended that the petitioners should not have any grievance and since on anticipation of approval from the State Government, the University appointed them in Class-III post but subsequently, when the approval was not received; a fresh notification was issued whereby the petitioners were appointed in Class-IV/Group-D post and all salary etc. was decided to be paid since June, 2014 in the scale of 2500 – 3200/- and the arrear of salary for the previous period shall be paid after approval and sanction of fund from the State Government. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State in all cases relied upon the argument of respondent-University and contended that for appointment in Group-C post, it is only the JSSC who is competent to recommend for appointment and further as per the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000; any appointment in contravention to the provision of the Act shall be invalid and shall be terminated at any time. 11. To decide the controversy and the issue involved in this case, Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 is to be looked into. For brevity, the same is quoted herein below:- “35. 11. To decide the controversy and the issue involved in this case, Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 is to be looked into. For brevity, the same is quoted herein below:- “35. No post for appointment shall be created without the prior sanction of the State Government- notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no University or any College affiliated to such a University except such college- (a) As is established, maintained or governed by the State Government or (b) As is established by a religious or linguistic minority: [(i) after the commencement of this Act no teaching or non-teaching post involving financial liabilities shall be created without prior approval of the State Government] (ii) Shall either increase the pay or allowance attached to any post, or sanction any new allowance; Provided that the State government may, by an order, revise the pay scale attached to such post or sanction any allowance; (iii) Shall sanction any special pay or allowance or other remuneration of any kind including ex-gratia payment or any other benefit having financial implication to any person holding a teaching or non-teaching post; (iv) Shall incur expenditure of any kind on any development scheme without the prior approval of the State Government.” 12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a University or its authorities in Jharkhand have no authority, whatsoever, to create fresh financial liability for the government by making appointments even on compassionate ground without any prior approval of the State government since the entire fund for making payment to the officers and employees of the University comes from the State government. No payment of salary can be made to the employees appointed; till their appointment is ultimately approved by the State government and funds are made available to the University for payment of their salary. 13. Even otherwise, Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 clearly envisaged that the commission has to recommend for appointment of any general/technical/non-technical services under the State Government for all group Class-III/Group-C post. 13. Even otherwise, Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 clearly envisaged that the commission has to recommend for appointment of any general/technical/non-technical services under the State Government for all group Class-III/Group-C post. From records it further transpires that it was in the background of non approval of these appointments made on class Class-III/Group-C grade posts on compassionate grounds by the State Government (HRDD) and non provision of any fund to the University for payment of salary to these appointees including the petitioners that the respondent- University decided to appoint them against class IV (D category) vacancies afresh and sought approval of these new appointments from the State Government. It further transpires that on persistent pressure of the petitioners and all similarly situated employees for payment of salary, the respondent-University decided to adjust the petitioners along with others who were appointed on Class-III post, to appoint them on Class-IV post which was sanctioned and vacant in different colleges in the University and make payment of their salary from internal resources of the University w.e.f. 2014. Even otherwise, that first notification dated 06.10.2012 issued under Memo No.110 of 2012; whereby the petitioners were appointed in Class-III post clearly stipulates that the said appointment was temporary for one year and clause 5 of the said notification clearly stipulates that the said temporary appointment shall be regularized only after approval from the State Government. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 is not applicable in the case of the petitioners because in compassionate appointment the dependent of deceased employees are to be given appointment after relaxing the normal rules and norms of the appointment; is misconceived. Further, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and specific provisions as enshrined in Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 and Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I don’t find any mala-fide on the part of the respondent-University; rather, it appears that all the petitioners including other similarly situated persons were adjusted against Class-IV vacancies in the University as the respondent-Vice Chancellor was empowered to appoint them in Class-IV vacancies and pay their salary. 16. Consequently, all these writ applications are dismissed on contest being devoid of merit.