JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. The present Group of appeals have arisen from the oral judgment dated 31.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition by which the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was allowed in part and the order dated 3.2.2017 issued by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University was quashed and set aside and the said University was directed to reinstate the original petitioner, however, without any back wages for the interregnum period i.e. from 2017 till date the original petitioner resumes the duty, holding the University to continue services of respondent No. 4 till completion of fix period of five years on fixed salary which was coming to an end in the year 2021. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1092 of 2021 came to be admitted by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.1.2022 after hearing learned advocate appearing for the appellant-University and Ms. Niyati Shah, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner. On the same day, coordinate Bench has also stayed impugned judgment dated 31.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge till the final disposal of the appeal. 3. Though the appeals are of the year 2021 and 2022 respectively, the same have been taken up for final disposal in view of the stay granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the fact that the original petitioner is without service. 4. The short facts arise from the record are as under: 4.1 The appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1092 of 2021, namely, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University is established by State of Gujarat for promotion of the Open University and distance education system in the educational pattern of the State under The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 14 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as ‘University Act’) w.e.f. 13.4.1994 and the remaining provisions of the Act have come into force w.e.f. 26.4.1994. The Governor of Gujarat shall be the Chancellor of University as per Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. The Vice Chancellor, Directors, Registrar and such Officers in service of the University are either to be appointed by the State Government or by a Committee appointed for the said purpose. 4.2 The Education Department of the State of Gujarat vide Resolution dated 23.5.1995 sanctioned 11 posts describing their pay scales. The Vice Chancellor, Directors, Registrar and such Officers in service of the University are either to be appointed by the State Government or by a Committee appointed for the said purpose. 4.2 The Education Department of the State of Gujarat vide Resolution dated 23.5.1995 sanctioned 11 posts describing their pay scales. Therefore, by another Resolution dated 24.5.2000, the State Government sanctioned 30 posts, however 8 posts which were earlier granted came to be cancelled. The said Resolution includes post of Supervisor (Civil). Thereafter, State Government vide another Resolution dated 23.1.1998 further sanctioned 21 posts for teaching as well as non-teaching staff for the University. As per the said Resolution, it was clarified by the State Government that University is supposed to follow the guidelines stated in the said Resolution itself like there should be no direct appointment on the post, the appointment shall be made on deputation, surplus and/or contract basis or retired persons on contract basis as well as to see that the appointments shall be made in such a way that there would be no financial burden on the State Government. 4.3 In consonance with the aforesaid Government Resolutions, the appellant-University issued a public advertisement on 7.7.2001 inviting applications for various teaching and non-teaching posts for appointment on contract basis on fixed salary which included post of Supervisor (Civil). Since the original petitioner was interested on the post of Supervisor (Civil), he applied for the said post and after following recruitment procedure, the original petitioner was appointed on the post of Supervisor (Civil) by order dated 3.10.2001 for a period of one year with consolidated fixed salary on the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 with allowances available for the said post. The original petitioner was also directed to fill undertaking/Form of agreement and terms and conditions for appointment fixed tenure/contract basis. The said Agreement clearly states that the appointee shall be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 4500-7000 + admissible allowances per month. Thereafter, the contract of the original petitioner was renewed from time to time till 3.2.2017 when the services of the original petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that one Mr. Bhavik Somaiya-appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2022 was selected and appointed on the said post of Supervisor (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the University dated 23.8.2016 in accordance with the above referred Government Resolutions. Bhavik Somaiya-appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2022 was selected and appointed on the said post of Supervisor (Civil) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the University dated 23.8.2016 in accordance with the above referred Government Resolutions. 4.4 Upon termination of the services of the original petitioner and appointment of respondent No. 4 on the said post, the original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 5519 of 2017 for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned Government Resolution dated 28.02.2013 in a so far as it requires the post of Supervisor (Civil) in respondent no. 3-University to be filled in on the basis of Fixed Pay of Rs. 5,300/- per month for the period of five years, and the Office Order dated 13.05.2016 in so far as it makes the provision regarding termination of services of the petitioner forthwith, as soon as the procedure for recruitment on the post of Supervisor (Civil) on the basis of Government Resolution dated 28.02.2013 is completed and the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3-University terminating the service of the petitioner as Supervisor (Civil) with immediate effect. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned government resolution dated 28.02.2013 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent in so far as it requires the post of Supervisor (Civil) in respondent no. 3-university to be filled in on the basis of fixed pay of Rs. 5,300/- per month for a period of five years. (BB) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Inida to teh extent of insofar as it sought to create the post of supervisor (civil) again in the Respondent No. 3 university. (BB) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Inida to teh extent of insofar as it sought to create the post of supervisor (civil) again in the Respondent No. 3 university. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent-authorities to renew the petitioner's contract of service on the same terms and conditions and pay as either to and further directing the respondent-authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner on the basis of government resolutions dated 23.01.1998 as the petitioner was appointed way back in 2001 and put up uninterrupted services of more than 15 years on a permanent and sanctioned post of Supervisor (Civil). (D) During the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'bie Court may be pleased to grant against operation, implementation and execution of the government resolution dated 28.02.2013 as well as the office orders dated 13.05.2016 and 03.02.2017 and the petitioner may be allowed to discharge his duty on his original post without any interruption; (E) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order or relief as may be deemed fit to the Hon'ble Court.” 4.5 In response to the notice issued by learned Single Judge, the appellant herein-Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, State of Gujarat as well as private respondent- Bhavikkumar A. Somoya filed affidavits-in-reply and produced necessary documents in the nature of communications, recommendations, Govt. Resolutions etc. to which the original petitioner filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions and examining the Government Resolutions, quashed and set aside Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013 as well as quashed and set aside order dated 3.2.2017 passed by University by which original petitioner was terminated and directed the University to reinstate the original petitioner within 8 weeks and to take appropriate action for appointing the original petitioner on regular basis within a period of six months thereafter. However, back wages for the interregnum period from 2017 till date the original petitioner resumes the duty were denied to the original petitioner. However, back wages for the interregnum period from 2017 till date the original petitioner resumes the duty were denied to the original petitioner. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, learned Single Judge directed the University to continue his services till completion of fix period of five years on a fix salary which was coming to an end in the year 2021. 4.6 Hence Letters Patent Appeal No. 1092 of 2021 is filed at the instance of the University, Letters Patent Appeal No. 140 of 2022 is filed at the instance of the State Government and Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2022 is filed at the instance of original respondent No. 4- Bhavikkumar A. Somoya who was appointed in place of petitioner. Cross Objection has been filed by the original petitioner against denial of back wages and for grant of the same. 5. Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-University would submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error in accepting the say of the original petitioner and directing the University to take action for appointing him on regular basis since he was appointed purely on contractual basis and for a fixed term with fixed salary. He would further submit that initially, State Government sanctioned 11 posts vide Resolution dated 23.5.1995 and thereafter it was enhanced to 30 posts vide Resolution dated 24.5.2000. Since as per the provisions of the University Act, since most of the grants are made available to the University by the State Government, Central Government, Indira Gandhi National Open University and University Grants Commission, the State Government though it fit to recruit the said 30 posts (non-teaching staff) purely on contractual basis or by deputation or by appointing retired employees on contract basis for smooth functioning of the University and it was also provided in the said Resolution that University has to appoint the persons on contractual basis so that there should not be any financial burden on the State Government. 5.1 By taking us through the Resolution dated 24.5.2000, Mr. 5.1 By taking us through the Resolution dated 24.5.2000, Mr. Shelat would submit that there would be no direct appointment on the said posts and those posts were to be filled in by deputation, surplus and on contract basis and from retired employees that too on contract basis and it was also stated therein that the contract should be made in the manner which would not create financial burden on the State Government. Accordingly, advertisement was issued on 7.7.2001 by the University to appoint several posts, including the post of Supervisor (Civil). By taking us through the advertisement, he would submit that it is clearly stated in the said advertisement that all the appointments would be purely on contractual basis and on fixed salary. Therefore, those persons who were interested in the said posts including the original petitioner had applied. Having found suitable for the post of Supervisor (Civil), the original petitioner was appointed on the said post by order dated 3.10.2001. Mr. Shelat would further submit that in the appointment order also, the original petitioner was asked to fill up the undertaking supplied by the University. Accordingly, the original petitioner submitted undertaking in the nature of agreement and terms and conditions for appointment fixed tenure/contract basis with the University wherein he has agreed that he has been appointed on a fixed tenure or till the approval is given by the Government for making recruitment on permanent basis and the procedure of making appointment is finalized, whichever is earlier. 5.2 Mr. Shelat would further submit that it is true that several persons were working with the University on contractual basis and, therefore, when Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 was issued by the Education Department of State Government for filling up the posts on permanent basis including the post of Supervisor (Civil), several representations were made by the employees working in the University and thereafter on 28.2.2013, another Resolution was issued by the Education Department of the State Government wherein it was clarified that certain posts including the post of Supervisor (Civil) would be filled up for a fixed term of five years on fixed salary. Thereafter, a recourse was made by the University to the Education Department of State Government vide communication dated 24.4.2013 to allow the University to fill up the 4 posts on permanent basis in place of contractual basis. Thereafter, a recourse was made by the University to the Education Department of State Government vide communication dated 24.4.2013 to allow the University to fill up the 4 posts on permanent basis in place of contractual basis. However, the said request was not replied by the State Government. Thereafter, in pursuance of the above referred Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013, University again published advertisement on 21.7.2016 in daily newspaper inviting applications for filling up the posts on fixed pay for five years period which include the post of Supervisor (Civil). In the said advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that posts like P.A. Cum Steno to Vice Chancellor, Office Superintendent, Steno Grade II (Gujarati), Supervisor (Civil) and Senior Clerk would get fixed pay referred therein for five year period. 5.3 Mr. Shelat would further submit that original petitioner neither raised any objection with regard to the said advertisement dated 21.7.2016 nor participated in the said recruitment. Thereafter, process of recruitment as per the said advertisement concluded and respondent No. 4 herein-Bhavikkumar A. Somoya was selected and appointed as Supervisor (Civil) with the University for a fixed pay of Rs. 5,300/- for a period of five years by order dated 5.12.2016. In pursuance of the said appointment order, the said Bhavikkumar A. Somoya joined the services with the University on 21.12.2016. Thereafter, the University by order dated 3.2.2017 terminated the services of the original petitioner. He, therefore, would submit that since original petitioner has never questioned the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.8.2016 nor participated in the same, learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the said appointment at the instance of the original petitioner. 5.4 Mr. Shelat would further submit that when specific contention was raised by the appellant in the affidavit-in-reply, the original petitioner filed rejoinder by making evasive reply that he deliberately did not participate in the recruitment process since his case could not have been considered even as per the advertisement about relaxing the age of an employee who was working with the appellant University itself. He would further submit that hence, on apprehension, if the original petitioner has neither submitted an application nor participated in pursuance to the advertisement, there was no occasion for the University to examine the case subsequently put forward by the original petitioner in the rejoinder. He would further submit that hence, on apprehension, if the original petitioner has neither submitted an application nor participated in pursuance to the advertisement, there was no occasion for the University to examine the case subsequently put forward by the original petitioner in the rejoinder. He would further submit that the original petitioner might be earning fixed pay higher than offered in the latest advertisement, however, it was made clear in the advertisement that the candidates so selected for the post of Supervisor (Civil) would get fixed salary of Rs. 5,300/- for a period of five years and thereafter is case can be considered for regular appointment in the Pay Scale referred in the Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012. He would further submit that the original petitioner woke up from the slumber for claiming his rights after working for more than 15 years on a fixed pay for getting his services regularized and that too after ignoring the subsequent advertisement for regular appointment on the post of Supervisor (Civil) as well as subsequent to appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the said post and termination of his services for which he was initially appointed and his tenure was extended time and again by the appellant University. He would further submit that on one hand, the original petitioner who was appointed on contractual basis in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 24.5.2000 and had accepted the service conditions for years together, subsequent to his termination challenged Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013 by which the State Government has authorized the appellant University to make appointments of different posts on regular basis. Therefore, his case would be barred on the principles of estoppel. 5.5 In support of his submissions, Mr. Shelat has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Anita and Another, (2016) 8 SCC 293 . By taking us through paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision, he would submit that the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as services of the employee could not have been regularized by learned Single Judge by quashing and setting aside the Government Resolutions by which University appointed various types of employees on regular basis. He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2018) 12 SCC 50 . 5.6 Mr. Shelat has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pragati Mahila Samaj and Another vs. Arun S/o Laxman Zurmure, (2016) 9 SCC 255 wherein it is held that a temporary appointment as a part time lecturer for a fixed period would not result into permanent appointment, which is the case on hand. He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs. Paramjeet Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 250 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to consider a case for regular appointment, the nature of appointment is to be looked into and the terms and conditions are also to be perused while deciding such claim by an employee. He, therefore, would submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error in appreciating the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment of the original petitioner as well as wrongly interpreted Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013 and has erred in quashing and setting aside the said Government Resolutions and that too only on the ground that the original petitioner had worked on contract basis for more than 15 years. He, therefore, would submit that appeal of the University i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1092 of 2021 may be allowed and the impugned order of learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the original respondent No. 4- Bhavikkumar A. Somoya, who has also filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2022, has adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Shelat. She would further submit that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.8.2016, the respondent No. 4 appeared in the said recruitment process and got selected and appointed on the post of Supervisor (Civil) in accordance with the Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013. She would further submit that respondent No. 4 was initially appointed for a period of five years on fixed salary of Rs. 5,300/- and upon completion of five years period i.e. on 26.12.2001, he has been appointed on regular basis in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (Grade Pay of Rs. She would further submit that respondent No. 4 was initially appointed for a period of five years on fixed salary of Rs. 5,300/- and upon completion of five years period i.e. on 26.12.2001, he has been appointed on regular basis in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400) as referred in Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012. She would further submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the original respondent No. 4 was appointed only for a period of five years on fixed salary. She would further submit that the original petitioner was fully aware that he was appointed on contractual basis and time to time, his contract was renewed and that too on fixed salary. Therefore, he cannot now raise question about his termination on completion of the contractual period and that too, without participating in the recruitment undertaken in the year 2016 and challenging the same that too after appointment of original respondent No. 4. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Another v. Y.D. Deshpande and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 482 and, therefore, would submit that the appeal filed by the original respondent No. 4 i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 of 2022 may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Government-original respondent Nos.1 and 2 (appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 140 of 2022) has adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocates Mr. Shelat and Ms. Vyas. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal filed at the instance of State Government may also be allowed along with the appeals of the University and original respondent no. 4. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Niyati Shah, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioner has supported the decision of learned Single Judge. She would submit that it is not in dispute that the Government of Gujarat has sanctioned 31 posts including one post of Supervisor (Civil) by Government Resolution dated 23.1.1998. She would further submit that against the said post, the original petitioner was appointed after due process of recruitment in the year 2001, though might be on a contractual basis at initial stage. She would further submit that against the said post, the original petitioner was appointed after due process of recruitment in the year 2001, though might be on a contractual basis at initial stage. She would further submit that it is an undisputed fact that from 11.10.2001, the original petitioner had worked almost for more than 15 years i.e. upto 3.2.2017 and, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that considering the length of service put in by the original petitioner, his services are required to be regularized in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Another, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . She would submit that the original petitioner had made several representations to the University for regularizing his services along with the other employees on the ground of their long tenure of service with the University. However, no action was taken either by the University or by State Government and, therefore, the writ petition was filed for regularizing the services. She would further submit that learned Single Judge has rightly held that for the first time, by Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012, the University was permitted to fill up 19 posts for teaching staff and 8 posts for non-teaching staff including the post of Supervisor (Civil) and, therefore, created such posts for the first time and though the original petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned post pursuant to the Resolution dated 23.1.1998, his services was not regularizes and hence, this aspect has been rightly dealt with by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order and does not call for any interference. 8.1 Ms. Shah would further submit that by another Resolution dated 28.2.2013, the State Government permitted the University to fill up the post of Supervisor (Civil) on fixed pay for a period of five years and, therefore, learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that services of the original respondent No. 4 would come to an end in December, 2021. She would further submit that University was also of the opinion that the appointment could not be on fixed pay since the post was permitted to be filled up after a period of 19 years. However, there was no response from the State Government for years together and, therefore, the original petitioner was continued on the said post upto his termination. However, there was no response from the State Government for years together and, therefore, the original petitioner was continued on the said post upto his termination. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , she would submit that if the employees has worked continuously for number of years, they should be regularized. By relying upon another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 , she would submit that in the said decision, Uma Devi's case (supra) was considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated about giving effect of regularization if the person has worked for years together. She, therefore, would submit that the present group of appeals may be dismissed. 8.2 As far as cross objections are concerned, she would submit that when learned Single Judge has held that the services of the original petitioner be regularized, then all the consequential benefits should have been granted including the back wages to the original petitioner. She, therefore, requests that cross objections of the original petitioner may be allowed and appropriate orders may be passed. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents produced by both the parties in the writ petition. As stated earlier, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University is established by State of Gujarat for promotion of the Open University and distance education system in the educational pattern of the State under The Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994 and is supposed to follow the guidelines and resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time in accordance with the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Subsequent to establishment of the University, the Education Department of the State Government by Government Resolution dated 23.5.1995 had sanctioned in all 11 posts which are permanent in nature in which post in question i.e. Supervisor (Civil) was not there. Thereafter, by another Government Resolution dated 23.1.1998, the Education Department of the State Government sanctioned in all 31 posts including one post of Supervisor (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. Thereafter, by another Government Resolution dated 23.1.1998, the Education Department of the State Government sanctioned in all 31 posts including one post of Supervisor (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The Education Department of the State Government by another Government Circular dated 24.5.2000 permitted the University to fill up in all 30 posts including one post of Supervisor (Civil) on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution. The said Government Resolution specifically states that the said posts shall not to be filled up by direct recruitment and the said posts shall be filled up by deputation, surplus, contract basis, retired employees on contract basis and even while appointing a person on contract basis, the University is supposed to see that there would not be permanent financial burden on the State Government on account of recruitment on contract basis. In pursuance of the said Government Resolution dated 24.5.2000, the University issued advertisement on 7.7.2001 inviting applications for several posts mentioned therein including the post in question. If we peruse the advertisement in question, it makes amply clear that the appointments was to be made on contract basis with fixed salary. The first sentence of the advertisement is self-explanatory. The original petitioner was fully aware that he is going to be appointed for a fixed limited period on contract basis and that too on fixed salary. The original petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor (Civil) and even though he participated and when he got selected for the said post, he was served with the appointment order dated 3.10.2001 which clearly states that he was appointed for a period of one year on fixed pay that too on condition of executing an agreement about the terms and conditions of his contractual appointment which he accepted the same. Accordingly, he was getting fixed salary and upon completion of his contract period, his tenure of contractual services was extended by the University time and again. The learned Single Judge has narrated the tenure of the appointment of the original petitioner which is reproduced again as under: S. No. Period Date of Office Order 1. 11.10.2001 to 10.10.2002 03.10.2001 2. 11.10.2002 to 10.04.2003 05.10.2002 3. 11.04.2003 to 10.10.2003 10.04.2003 4. 13.10.2003 to 12.10.2004 23.10.2003 5. 13.10.2004 to 12.10.2005 15.10.2004 6. 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 13.10.2005 7. 13.10.2006 to 12.10.2007 16.10.2006 8. 13.10.2007 to 12.10.2008 04.10.2007 24.03.2008 9. 11.10.2001 to 10.10.2002 03.10.2001 2. 11.10.2002 to 10.04.2003 05.10.2002 3. 11.04.2003 to 10.10.2003 10.04.2003 4. 13.10.2003 to 12.10.2004 23.10.2003 5. 13.10.2004 to 12.10.2005 15.10.2004 6. 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 13.10.2005 7. 13.10.2006 to 12.10.2007 16.10.2006 8. 13.10.2007 to 12.10.2008 04.10.2007 24.03.2008 9. 13.10.2008 to 12.10.2009 10.10.2008 27.05.2009 10. 13.10.2009 to 12.10.2010 06.10.2009 18.01.2010 11. 13.10.2010 to 12.10.2011 12.10.2010 12. 13.10.2011 to 12.09.2012 17.10.2011 13. 13.09.2012 to 12.08.2013 14.09.2012 14. 13.08.2013 to 12.07.2014 26.06.2013 19.08.2013 15. 13.07.2014 to 12.06.2015 04.08.2014 11.10.2014 16. 13.06.2015 to 12.05.2016 12.08.2015 17. 13.05.2016 to 12.04.2017 13.05.2016 21.11.2016 10. From the perusal of the above table, it appears that some time, the contract of the original petitioner was extended for a period of one year and on some occasion, it was extended for a period of six months. Whenever the contract of the original petitioner was extended, agreement and terms and conditions for appointment on fixed tenure/contract basis was entered into between the original petitioner and the University and one of such agreement has been produced on the record. Clause 2 of such agreement makes it clear that the original petitioner has been appointed for a particular period mentioned in the said agreement or till approval is given by the Government for making recruitment on permanent basis and the procedure of making appointment is finalized, whichever is earlier. The same was signed by the original petitioner in vernacular language (Gujarati). Therefore, it is clear that the original petitioner was aware that he was appointed on fixed term with fixed salary. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the original petitioner was appointed on regular basis though it may be a sanctioned post at the instance of the State Government from the year 2001. Thereafter, when the State Government found suitable to fill up the sanctioned post on regular basis, Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 was issued by which the University was permitted to fill up several posts including the post in question i.e. Supervisor (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200. Thereafter, when the State Government found suitable to fill up the sanctioned post on regular basis, Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 was issued by which the University was permitted to fill up several posts including the post in question i.e. Supervisor (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200. However, by another Government Resolution dated 28.2.2013, it was clarified that certain posts like P.A. Cum Steno to Vice Chancellor, Office Superintendent, Steno Grade II (Gujarati), Supervisor (Civil) and Senior Clerk would get fixed pay referred therein for a period of five years and subsequent to completion of five years service, they would be appointed in the pay scale as mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012. Thereafter, in compliance with the Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013, the University had issued public advertisement on 21.7.2016 inviting applications from interested candidates to fill up several posts including the post of Supervisor (Civil) wherein it was made clear that it was for a fixed period of five years with fixed salary. Clause 3 of the advertisement make some relaxation with regard to age limit. The same reads as under: “3.0 Relaxations: (1) Relaxation in age limit to the candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC, FEMALE, differently abled, categories and Ex-Armyman will be as per State Government norms. (2) Relaxation in age limit equal to the experience in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University will be provided to the candidates who is working in the University.” 11. It is an undisputed fact that the original petitioner never applied in pursuance of the said advertisement for the reasons best known to him or under the presumption that his services would be continued even if he does not participate in the recruitment process. We accept the submission made on behalf of the original petitioner that he did not apply for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement since he was aged 47 years and the age relaxation would not have helped him. We accept the submission made on behalf of the original petitioner that he did not apply for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement since he was aged 47 years and the age relaxation would not have helped him. The fact remains that neither the original petitioner raised any objection about advertisement dated 21.7.2016 for the post in question on which he was working since last 15 years nor challenged the legality of the same before any Court of law and even after the advertisement, by order dated 13.5.2016, the University had extended the period of service of the original petitioner from 13.5.2016 to 12.11.2016 and clearly specified therein that the same would be subject to the confirmation of the selection process by the State Government under Government Resolution dated 28.2.2013. Therefore, the original petitioner was aware about the recruitment process being undertaken by the University to fill up the post in question. However, he did not raise any question about his so-called right and validity of the Government Resolutions and ultimately after he was relieved from the post in question and another candidate i.e. respondent No. 4 was appointed in his place, he challenged the same by way of writ petition. 12. Apart from the aforesaid factual aspects, in the decision relied upon by Mr. Shelat in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Anita and Another (Supra), paragraphs 14 and 15 makes it clear that if the appointment is purely contractual, the same would not create any right, interest or benefits whatsoever of the permanent services in the Government. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision read as under: “14. It is relevant to note that the respondents at the time of appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with Appendix 'B' attached to Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the government. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement which read as under: “1. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the government. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement which read as under: “1. The First Party hereby agrees to appoint Shri/Smt..........(Party No. II) as a..........on contract basis for a period of 11 months commencing from..........to..........(mention date) on consolidated remuneration of Rs..........(Rupees...................only) per month, and said remuneration will be payable at the end of each calendar month according to British Calendar. It is agreed that IInd party shall not be entitled for separate T.A. and D.A. during the contract period. 2.......... 3.......... 4.......... 5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a further two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to the satisfaction of Competent Authority, and on its recommendations. 6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest, benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the Government.” 15. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.” 13. As stated herein above, undertaking which has been reproduced above in the above referred decision, same type of agreement has been signed by the original petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the original petitioner would not be entitled for the relief which has been granted by learned Single Judge. Similar is the ratio laid down in the decision cited by Ms. Mamta Vyas of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Another vs. Y.D. Deshpande and Others (Supra), paragraph 4 of the said decision reads as under: “4. Similar is the ratio laid down in the decision cited by Ms. Mamta Vyas of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Another vs. Y.D. Deshpande and Others (Supra), paragraph 4 of the said decision reads as under: “4. It is now well-settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post. In the instant case as noticed above, the respective respondents have accepted the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders and joined the posts in question and continued on the said post for some years. The respondents having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which they were appointed to have been elapsed by efflux of time, they are not now permitted to turn their back and say that their appointments could not be terminated on the basis of their appointment letters nor they could be treated as temporary employee or on contract basis. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the said effect has no merit and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is also well-settled law by several other decisions of this Court that appointment on ad hoc basis/temporary basis comes to an end by efflux of time and persons holding such post have no right to continue on the post and ask for regularisation etc.” 14. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and another and in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others (Supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and another and in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others (Supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant University had committed no error in terminating the services of the original petitioner in terms of the contract of appointment and, therefore, we also hereby held that the employee who is appointed on a particular post for a fixed period with fixed salary cannot claim regularization of his services on the ground that he continued on the said post for long duration as after the original petitioner was terminated from service, respondent No. 4 who was appointed in his place was also appointed on fixed period of five years with fixed salary and upon completion of five years period, respondent No. 4 has been appointed on regular basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government Resolutions dated 15.5.2012 and 28.2.2013 are arbitrary and therefore the same cannot be quashed and set aside by directing University to reinstate the original petitioner and directing the University to take appropriate action for appointing the original petitioner on regular basis, as was done by learned Single Judge, contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. 15. In the result, all the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order dated 31.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5519 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Connected civil applications also stand disposed of. 16. In view of the aforesaid, cross objections of the original petitioner are hereby dismissed.