JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The petitioner, Dr. Nakli Singh, has challenged his non-re-employment by the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (‘the University' for short), after his retirement from the said University. He is aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2020 whereby his representation to re-employ him on the post of Professor (Zoology) in the University has been rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, on 09.01.1980, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the said University. On 01.01.1986, he was promoted as the Senior Lecturer. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader. Subsequently, on 09.06.2001, he was promoted on the post of Professor in the Zoology Department. Since the petitioner was born on 03.12.1955, by office order dated 26.06.2020, the Registrar of the University informed the petitioner that he is due to retire on 31.12.2020. Since the petitioner was scheduled to retire in the middle of the academic year, on 25.11.2020, he submitted a representation wherein he prayed that the benefit of continuation of his services till 30.06.2021 should be granted to him. According to the petitioner, initially, he was appointed in the State University, as the University existed at the relevant time as a State University. Subsequently, on 15.01.2009, the University was upgraded to a Central University under the Central Universities Act, 2009 (‘the Act, 2009' for short). According to Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 the same terms and conditions which were prevalent prior to upgrading the University into the Central University, would continue even after the upgradation of the University into the Central University. Moreover, Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, 1978 (the Rules relating to the State University), clearly stipulated that, in case a teacher were to retire in middle of the academic year, his services will continue till the end of the academic session and he/she will be treated as a re-employed person. However, by order dated 02.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was rejected by the University. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the Chancellor of the University on 03.12.2020. However, by e-mail dated 04.12.2020, the said application was also rejected by the Chancellor. Hence, the present Writ Petition before this Court. 3. Mr. However, by order dated 02.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was rejected by the University. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the Chancellor of the University on 03.12.2020. However, by e-mail dated 04.12.2020, the said application was also rejected by the Chancellor. Hence, the present Writ Petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the State University, which was subsequently upgraded into the Central University under the Act, 2009. According to Section 4(d) of the Act, every teacher employed by the University immediately before the commencement of the Act, will continue on the same tenure, at the same remuneration, and upon the same terms and conditions, and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if the Act, 2009 was not enacted. Such a person would continue to do so until and unless his terms and conditions are “duly altered by the Statutes". Secondly, Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, the provision clearly stated that those teachers who would retire in middle of the academic session will continue till the end of the academic session. But continuation of their service would be treated as re4 employment from the date immediately following the superannuation till the end of the academic session. Thus, according to him, the combination of both the provisions clearly bestowed a right upon the petitioner to continue his services till the end of the academic session. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the petitioner's representation in a cavalier manner. Thirdly, relying on the case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal & others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, (2020 SCC Online SC 846), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the Statute 16.24 of the First Statute of the University of Kumaon, 1977. The said Statute is in pari materia with Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, 1978. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that those teachers, who retired in middle of academic session, should be re-employed and continue to serve the Institute till the end of the academic session. The said Statute is in pari materia with Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, 1978. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that those teachers, who retired in middle of academic session, should be re-employed and continue to serve the Institute till the end of the academic session. According to the learned counsel, the said principle is equally applicable to the present case. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's representation is legally unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents-University, has submitted the following counter-arguments:- Firstly, Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009, clearly stipulates that the terms and conditions of service would continue till they are “duly altered by the Statutes". Secondly, the University is bound to adhere to the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (‘the UGC' for short). Thirdly, on 30.06.2010, the UGC had promulgated Regulations which were called “the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010", (‘the Regulations, 2010' for short). These Regulations applied to the Central Universities as well. According to these Regulations, the age of superannuation for teachers was enhanced to sixty-five years. “Subject to availability of vacant post and fitness', teachers shall also be re-employed on contractual appointment beyond the age of sixty-five years upto the age of seventy years". Thus, re-employment of teachers, after the age of superannuation at the age of sixty-five years, is subject to two conditions, namely, availability of vacant post, and fitness of the person to continue on the post he/she held prior to superannuation. Therefore, a discretion has been bestowed upon the University whether to continue or not to continue the Professor after he/she retired from the University. Fourthly, the Regulations, 2010 have been adopted by the University in its meeting held on 16.06.2020. Therefore, the University is bound to follow the Regulations promulgated by the UGC. After all, these Regulations become a part of the Statutes of the University. Fifthly, once the discretion has been bestowed upon the University to re-employ a retired teacher, the petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to continue on the post of Professor till the end of the academic session. After all, these Regulations become a part of the Statutes of the University. Fifthly, once the discretion has been bestowed upon the University to re-employ a retired teacher, the petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to continue on the post of Professor till the end of the academic session. Sixthly, the petitioner is unjustified in relying on those Statutes which covered the State Universities. For, those Statutes have already been superseded by the Act, 2009, and the Regulations promulgated by the UGC in 2010. Therefore, the petitioner's reliance on Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, 1978, is highly misplaced. Moreover, once the petitioner has become anemployee of the Central University, he cannot take the benefit of those Statutes which were governing the State Universities. For, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. On the one hand, claiming to be an employee of the Central University, and yet on the other hand seeking the benefit of those Statutes, Rules and Regulations, which governed the State Universities. Lastly, in the case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the Statutes of the State University. Therefore, the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is inapplicable to thecase of a Central University. Hence, reliance on the said case law is highly misplaced. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and considered the records submitted bythe petitioner and the respondents. 6. Admittedly, initially, the University was a State University, covered by the Statutes, Rules and Regulations applicable to the State Universities. Undoubtedly, the University was upgraded into the Central University on 15.01.2009. Thereafter, the University is covered both by the Act, 2009, and by the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the UGC. 7. 6. Admittedly, initially, the University was a State University, covered by the Statutes, Rules and Regulations applicable to the State Universities. Undoubtedly, the University was upgraded into the Central University on 15.01.2009. Thereafter, the University is covered both by the Act, 2009, and by the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the UGC. 7. Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 is as under:- “4(d) Every person employed by Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, immediately before the commencement of this Act shall hold his office or service in Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, respectively, established under this Act by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if this Act had not been enacted and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Statutes: Provided that if the alteration so made is not acceptable to such employee, his employment may be terminated by the University in accordance with the terms of the contract with the employee or, if no provision is made therein in this behalf, on payment, to him by the University, of compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration in case of permanent employees and one month's remuneration in the case of other employees: Provided further that every person employed before the commencement of this Act, pending the execution of a contract under section 33, shall be deemed to have been appointed in accordance with the provisions of a contract consistent with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes: Provided also that any reference, by whatever form of words, to the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice- Chancellor of Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya or Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, in any law for the time being in force, or in any instrument or other document, shall be construed as a reference to the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya or Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, as the case may be, established under this Act". 8. 8. A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that the terms and conditions of service would continue to be the same, until they are “duly altered by the Statutes". 9. In 2010, the UGC has promulgated the Regulations, 2010, which contains the provisions with regard to the superannuation of the teachers in the Central Universities. According to the said Regulations, the age of superannuation was enhanced to sixty-five years. Moreover, if there was availability of the vacant post, and the teacher was found to be fit to continue to teach, he could be re-employed on contractual basis till the age of seventy years. Thus, a discretionary power is bestowed upon the University to continue a retired teacher till the age of seventy years, provided that there was a vacant post, and the teacher was found fit. 10. Moreover, according to the Fundamental Rules of the Government of India, more specifically, FR (56)(a), every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month, in which he/she is due to retire. Since the petitioner was due to retire on 02.12.2020, vide order dated 26.06.2020, he was informed that he would retire on 31.12.2020. A combined reading of the Regulations, 2010, and FR (56)(a), clearly reveals that the petitioner does not have a right to claim that he must be re-employed after the date of his superannuation. Therefore, the respondents were justified in rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner. 11. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another vs. N.R. Vairamani and another, ( AIR 2004 SC 4778 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. 12. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and others, [ (1987) 1 SCC 213 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. 13. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [ (2003) 2 SCC 111 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that a little difference in fact or additional facts, may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 14. 13. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [ (2003) 2 SCC 111 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that a little difference in fact or additional facts, may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 14. Therefore, each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 15. The case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal (supra), is distinguishable from the present case on the basis of factual matrix. The issue involved in the said case was a correct interpretation of a decision of the respondents- University, regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers. Statute No.16.24 of the Kumaon University clearly stipulated that the age of superannuation of a teacher shall be sixty-five years. Although Statute 16.24 (2) provided that “no extension in service beyond the age of sixty-five years shall be granted", the said clause (2) does contain a proviso, namely, “that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June, 30, shall continue on service till the end of the academic session, i.e. June, 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following". 16. Admittedly, the said Statute dealt with the State Universities, and not with the Central Universities, whereas, the present case deals with the Central University. Therefore, the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that those teachers who retired in middle of the academic session in the State Universities shall be continued till the end of the academic session, is inapplicable to the present case. After all, the Statutes are different, and their scope and ambit is at variance. Hence, reliance on the case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal (supra), by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is highly misplaced. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. It is, hereby, dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.