JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. This intra court appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ-court”] in SWP No. 130/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein has been partly allowed whereby the order of regularization of the appellants has been set-aside and they have been held eligible for regularization upon completion of seven years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.09.2013, 01.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 respectively. Writ court has, thus, directed the respondent-University to re-visit the order of regularization of the appellants and pass speaking order in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, it is necessary to set out few facts germane to the disposal of this appeal. 3. The appellants came to be engaged as Junior Assistants on a consolidated salary w.e.f. 11.06.2002, 16.07.2002 and 20.07.2002 respectively. They continued in temporary service of the University for some time, but remained out of action for almost one and a half year till they were re-engaged by the University vide its orders dated 01.09.2006, 26.04.2006 and 01.03.2006 respectively. The appellants like the private respondents completed seven years ad hoc service on consolidated basis and, thus, became eligible for regularization in terms of the decision taken by the University of Jammu on the analogy of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 (in short “the Act of 2010”). 4. The Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee to screen the service records of the persons working on contractual basis, who had completed seven years of service and had become eligible for regularization. The Committee after deliberation recommended the regularization of the appellants herein on the ground that they too had completed seven years service on ad hoc basis. As is pleaded by the appellants in the petition, the University even issued a formal order of regularization of the petitioners but the same was later on kept on hold pending opinion of the Financial Advisor of the University. This is how the matter came to be referred to the Financial Advisor of the University who opined that the Provisions of the Act of 2010 were not applicable to the University. This is how the matter came to be referred to the Financial Advisor of the University who opined that the Provisions of the Act of 2010 were not applicable to the University. However, the University could take a view in formulating a suitable policy on the analogy of the Act of 2010. 5. After receipt of the opinion from the Financial Advisor, the University realized that the order dated 28.10.2011, whereby the services of the appellants had been directed to be regularized, was contrary to the opinion of the Financial Advisor, as such, the said decision was kept in abeyance until the University formulated a suitable policy. 6. The University did formulate a policy in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2010. As could be seen, under Item No. 72.47, of this agenda note of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor to regularize the services of the contractual appointees of the University working as Junior Assistants was placed before the University Council for approval. It appears that University Council resolved that the matter in respect of regularization of the consolidated Junior Assistants be referred to the Financial Advisor of the University with full facts for its considered advice. 7. This is how the matter again went to the Financial Advisor, who while conveying his concurrence to the proposal of the University made the regularization of the incumbents subject to the conditions that they had more than seven years of continuous service without any break at their back. Upon receipt of the concurrence from the Financial Advisor, the University Council issued an order dated 17.08.2013, ordering the regularization of the appellants herein who stood at serial nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the said order w.e.f. 08.08.2013, i.e. the date on which the concurrence was given by the Financial Advisor. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed SWP No. 130 of 2017 seeking inter alia a direction to the University to regularize their services w.e.f. 28.10.2011 in terms of the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor which got the approval in principle by the Financial Advisor. It was argued before the writ-court that the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor earlier had found the appellants having put in more than seven years of continuous service reckoned from the year 2002 and, therefore, there was no occasion to defer the date of regularization to 08.08.2013. 9. The writ petition was contested by the University. It was argued before the writ-court that the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor earlier had found the appellants having put in more than seven years of continuous service reckoned from the year 2002 and, therefore, there was no occasion to defer the date of regularization to 08.08.2013. 9. The writ petition was contested by the University. It was the clear stand taken by the University before the writ-court that it was erroneous to assert that the appellants had rendered seven years continuous service as on 31.12.2010. It was submitted that there was a substantial break in services rendered by the appellants during their contractual engagements. It was pleaded that the appellants were initially engaged on contractual basis in the year 2002 but their services were discontinued in the year 2004-05. They were re-engaged w.e.f. 01.09.2006, 01.03.2006 & 26.04.2006 respectively. Accordingly, the decision of the University, regularizing their services from the date the concurrence to the proposal sent by the University Council, was received from the Financial Advisor was perfectly legal. The mater was considered at length by the writ-court which did not find favour with the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants that they had completed their continuous and uninterrupted period of 7 years in the year 2010 and, therefore, it was rightly decided to regularize the appellants w.e.f. 28.10.2011. The writ-court, however, found the appellants having completed seven years continuous service on 01.09.2013, 01.03.2013 & 26.04.2013 respectively. The plea of the appellants that they were similarly situated with the private respondents was also not accepted by the writ-court on the ground that in the case of private respondents there was only an artificial break of few days, whereas in the case of the appellants the break in service was more than one and a half year. 10. Be that as it may, the writ petition was partly allowed holding the appellants entitled to regularization w.e.f. 01.09.2013, 01.03.2013 & 26.04.2013 respectively. A direction was issued to the respondent-University to revisit the regularization matter of the appellants and, accordingly, give their regularization effect from the aforesaid dates by passing a fresh speaking order. The order dated 28.12.2016, which was impugned in the writ petition was, thus, quashed to the aforesaid extent. 11. A direction was issued to the respondent-University to revisit the regularization matter of the appellants and, accordingly, give their regularization effect from the aforesaid dates by passing a fresh speaking order. The order dated 28.12.2016, which was impugned in the writ petition was, thus, quashed to the aforesaid extent. 11. The appellants are aggrieved of and have called in question the judgment of the writ-court dated 31.05.2018 in this appeal, primarily, on the ground that the writ-court has failed to appreciate that the appellants and the private respondents herein were similarly situated and, therefore, the appellants could not have been subjected to differential treatment. 12. It is argued by Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants that in the case of private respondents, the breaks in temporary service were condoned whereas in the case of appellants the said period was taken out of reckoning of seven years continuous service. Mr. Sharma also refers to the past instances where interruption in service of more than one year had been condoned by the University on a case to case basis. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ-court is legally perfect and the view taken in the matter is unexceptionable and, therefore, does not call for any interference. Admittedly, in the case of appellants there was a break of one and a half year in their service and such break could not have been condoned to the extent of treating that period to be on duty for the purpose of reckoning seven years continuous and uninterrupted service required for regularization. In a way, the break in service of the appellants has been condoned by the respondents, in that, the appellants have not been treated to be out of service for the said period even when they were actually not serving in the University. 14. So far as the private respondents are concerned, we have gone through the record and we find that in their cases there were only artificial breaks. They were engaged by different orders from time to time and it was only because the issuance of fresh order each time would take some time that they used to be re-engaged with the break of day or two. They were engaged by different orders from time to time and it was only because the issuance of fresh order each time would take some time that they used to be re-engaged with the break of day or two. As a matter of fact the private respondents were not ousted at any point of time. 15. That being the clear position, the appellants and the private respondents never formed a single class and, therefore, the allegation of discrimination based on violation of Article 14 and 16 is not available to the appellants. The case of the appellants stands clearly on a different footing and has no parallel or comparison to the case of the private respondents. Rightly, the appellants have not been treated as on duty for a period of one and a half year, during which they were not in the engagement of the University. The Financial Advisor has tendered correct advice and the same has been carried out by the University in a perfectly legal way. 16. For the forgoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.