JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. A significant question of law of seminal importance and relating to financial autonomy of the University of Kashmir qua the authority of the State as the ultimate custodian of public fund which renders financial assistance to the University of Kashmir, has arisen in this apparently a routine litigation relating to claim for regularization by casual/contract employees serving in the University of Kashmir. 2. The Ld. Single Judge on being satisfied with the claim of certain casual/contract appointees including the present private respondents (writ petitioners) for regularization, directed to proceed with the process of their regularization by creating supernumerary posts initiated by the University of Kashmir by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2022 passed in WP (C) No. 1797 of 2020. 3. The authorities of the University of Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as the “University”) have challenged this direction of the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground such a direction cannot be carried out without the approval of the Administration, it being the ultimate custodian of the finance of the Union Territory because of which the matter was proposed to be referred again to the Chancellor, who is none other than the Lt. Governor of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been submitted that the University is depended upon the financial support from the State (UT) and hence, unless the University has the approval of the Administration, the proposed regularization of the casual/contract/consolidated pay employees cannot be implemented. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The appellants have also raised certain issues relating to the right of such contractual employees for regularization as it would be against the principles laid down in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , as such, the process for regularization without considering the case of other eligible candidates from the open source will be also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Considering that the primary issue involved is essentially legal in nature, and since the factual positions obtaining in the writ petition and the appeal are not seriously disputed, only a brief reference to the factual background may suffice for the purpose of consideration of this appeal. 6. 5. Considering that the primary issue involved is essentially legal in nature, and since the factual positions obtaining in the writ petition and the appeal are not seriously disputed, only a brief reference to the factual background may suffice for the purpose of consideration of this appeal. 6. Responding to the demands of the casual/contractual employees and also those appointed on consolidated basis in the University of Kashmir, the University took a policy decision for regularization of the services of these categories of employees, which policy decision was notified by the University under Notification No. F (Regular-Causal/Cosnt.-Gen.Adm) KU/14, dated 03.09.2014. The aforesaid scheme was prepared by the Financial Advisor (University) and was duly approved by the Syndicate of the University and thereafter, by the University Council, which is the highest authority of the University. 7. The guidelines laid down in the said Notification dated 03.09.2014 are as under: “1. The person working on casual or contractual or consolidated basis shall be regularized on fulfilment of the following conditions: (i) That he/she has been engaged in the Main campus/Satellite Campuses of the University of Kashmir by the General Administration on the approval of the Competent Authority. (ii) That he/she is continuously working on casual/consolidated/contractual basis without any break (other than the usual breaks/leave sanctioned by the authority i.e. Head of department/Directors/Coordinators/Librarian/Controller of examination. (iii) That he/she possesses the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria required for the post on the date of his/he initial engagement on casual or ad hoc or contractual or consolidated basis. (iv) That no disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him/her on the appointed day i.e. date on which he/she is considered for regularization. (v) That he/she completed seven years or more service (un-interrupted) as such on the appointed day i.e. the date of regularization. 8. Pursuant to the said scheme, the services of eligible candidates were regularized earlier on as many as three occasions in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018, as finally approved by the University Council in its meeting held on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018 respectively. Thus, 150 casual/contractual employees who were eligible were regularized by creating an equal number of supernumerary posts at the first instance in 2015. Thereafter, 366 casual/contractual appointees were regularized in the year 2017 by creating supernumerary posts and later 247 casual/contractual appointees were regularized in the year 2018 in a similar manner. 9. Thus, 150 casual/contractual employees who were eligible were regularized by creating an equal number of supernumerary posts at the first instance in 2015. Thereafter, 366 casual/contractual appointees were regularized in the year 2017 by creating supernumerary posts and later 247 casual/contractual appointees were regularized in the year 2018 in a similar manner. 9. Continuing with the said process of regularization, the Finance Committee of the University in its meeting held on 09.10.2018 proposed the creation of 80 posts of helpers and another 4 posts of helpers on supernumerary basis for regularization of 84 casual/contractual employees. The proposal was scrutinized by the Empowered Committee of the University, and the Syndicate and ultimately, it was approved by the University Council, the highest decision-making body of the University. 10. Ld. Single Judge in the aforesaid factual background examined the statutory provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969) which created the two universities, i.e. Kashmir University and Jammu University. We are concerned with the Kashmir University in the present case. Ld. Single Judge examined the various hierarchical authorities of the University and the power and functions of the Chancellor, Pro Chancellor, Education Minister, the Vice-Chancellor, Financial Advisor, the Education Advisor and such other officers as the Act had declared to be the officers of the University. 11. Ld. Single Judge also noted that the supreme authority of the University is the University Council as ordained under Section 22 of the Act of 1969 and the Syndicate of the University is the Chief Executive Authority which has the duty to frame the budget estimates of the University and submit the same to the University Council as prescribed by the Statute and further, it has the power to hold, control and administer the funds, property and other assets of the University and no expenditure is to be incurred without the approval of University Council. 12. The Ld. Single also noted that the Financial Advisor is the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or any officer nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, who shall be the ex-officio Financial Advisor to both the Universities, who shall have general power of supervision over the funds of each University and advise the University as regards the Financial Policy. Single also noted that the Financial Advisor is the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or any officer nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, who shall be the ex-officio Financial Advisor to both the Universities, who shall have general power of supervision over the funds of each University and advise the University as regards the Financial Policy. Similarly, the Standing Finance Committee constituted under Statute 2.22 which consists of the Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, if any, Financial Advisor, Secretary to Government Education Department (Higher Education and Technical) and others, also play an important role in the financial affairs of the University. 13. The Ld. Single Judge after examining the various offices/bodies under the Act of 1969, and related Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder, took the view that no decision involving financial implications could be taken without the approval of the authorities like the Syndicate and the University Council, which have the statutory presence of the Financial Advisor who is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department. Further, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also an officer of the Government and associated in the decision making. 14. Thus, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that the University of Kashmir and University of Jammu, which are the creatures of the Act of 1969 are fully autonomous in character both in institution as well as in financial matters and University Council is the supreme body of the University concerned and its decision cannot be varied, modified, or overturned by any authority, howsoever high it may be in its own affairs. 15. Thus, the observation of the Ld. Single Judge as contained in Paras 19 and 20 are of utmost significance for our consideration and accordingly, the same are reproduced herein-below: “19. From the entire scheme of things emerging from reading of the Act of 1969 and the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder, it is evident that no decision involving financial implications could be taken without approval of the authorities like the syndicate and the University council which have the statutory presence of Financial Advisor and the Financial Advisor is none, other than, the Secretary to the Government Finance Department. The Secretary to Government Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also an officer of the Government and associated in the decision making. 20. The Secretary to Government Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also an officer of the Government and associated in the decision making. 20. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the University of Kashmir and University of Jammu which are the creatures of the Act of 1969 are fully autonomous in character, both in institutional as well as the financial matters. The University council is the supreme body of the University concerned and its decisions cannot be varied, modified or overturned by any authority, howsoever high it may be in its own affairs.” 16. Under the circumstances, the Ld. Single Judge took the view that as a decision was taken by the University Council, the supreme authority of the University in its meeting held on 05.06.2020 for creation of 84 supernumerary positions of helpers to regularize the services of an equal number of casual/contractual appointees which include the present private respondents, it was a useless formality or an uncalled for procedure suggested by the University Council to submit the case history of all the eligible casual/contractual engagees to the Chancellor on file through to the Financial Advisor (Universities) i.e. FC-Finance, J&K Government. 17. The Ld. Single Judge also took the view that under similar circumstances, similarly situated persons were already regularized on three earlier occasions on 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and 10.04.2018 by creating supernumerary posts and, as such, when the turn of these 84 persons came as approved by the various authorities of the University as discussed above, there is no reason why the same cannot be implemented. 18. Some observations were also made by the Ld. Single about the role of Financial Advisor, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs in placing hurdles in implementing the decision of the University. 19. The Ld. Single Judge after considering the matter held that writ petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.11.2018, and that there was no basis for referring the matter to the Chancellor, for the reasons mentioned in Para 25 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below: 25. 19. The Ld. Single Judge after considering the matter held that writ petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.11.2018, and that there was no basis for referring the matter to the Chancellor, for the reasons mentioned in Para 25 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below: 25. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds the petitioners entitled to regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.01.2018 for the following reasons: (i) Indisputably, the petitioners have completed the mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service as casual/contractual engagees and have become entitled to regularization w.e.f. 01.11.2018 in terms of the roadmap for regularization of casual/contractual engagees, formulated and communicated by the Financial Adviser which road-map-stands approved by the University Council; (ii) On the approval granted by the University Council, on earlier three occasions i.e. 23.10.2015, 22.04.2017 and,10.04.2018, the University Council not only created hundreds of supernumerary positions and designated them as Helpers for regularizing the services of those who had completed seven years of uninterrupted service and were otherwise eligible under the University Notification dated03.09.2014 (supra). The University Council could not have deviated from its earlier position while dealing with the cases of 84 casual/contractual engagees who also completed their mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and became eligible for regularization on 31.10.2018, more So, when the cases of these 84 casual/contractual engagees which include the petitioners were entirely similar and identical to the cases of those who were regularized in the year 2015, 2017 and 2018 respectively. The petitioners have, thus, been subjected to hostile discrimination. The action of respondents is, thus, absolutely discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 andl6 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That the decision of the University Council to refer the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser after having accepted the proposal in principle, is totally arbitrary and de hors Act of 1969 and the Statues and Regulations framed thereunder. There was no point in referring the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser, when both the authorities were present in the University Council. To remind, it may pointed out that the Chancellor is the head of the University Council and is assisted, inter-alia, by the Financial Adviser, who is of the members of the University Council. There was no point in referring the matter to the Chancellor through Financial Adviser, when both the authorities were present in the University Council. To remind, it may pointed out that the Chancellor is the head of the University Council and is assisted, inter-alia, by the Financial Adviser, who is of the members of the University Council. The University Council being the supreme body of the University cannot abdicate its powers to the authority or authorities which are not superior to it; and (iv) From reading of Act of 1969 and the statues and Regulations framed thereunder, this Court has come to the conclusion that the Universities created under the Act of 1969 enjoy the institutional as well as the financial autonomy and the interest of the Government in utilization of funds provided to the Universities is well taken care of by the inbuilt mechanism. The Financial Adviser is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance and apart from him, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education (Higher and Technical) is also a member of all important committees. That being the position, I find no reason or justification to raise the position of the Financial Adviser and for that matter, the Chancellor of the University to the level above the University Council. There could be no two supreme bodies in any institution. The Chancellor being the head of the university and entitled to preside over the meetings of the university council, has been vested with enough control of running the affairs of the University. That apart, this court does not find any reason or justification coming forth, either from the record of the University or the reply affidavit filed by the Registrar, University of Kashmir which could throw light as to why, for the last two years, the Chancellor and the Financial Adviser, to whom the matter was referred by the University Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, could not take a decision in the matter, though this Court finds that such course of action adopted by the University Council was totally illegal, arbitrary and de hors Act of1969 and the Statues and the Regulations frame thereunder. 20. Thereafter, the Ld. Single Judge proceeded to issue following directions: 26. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, I find merit in this petition. 20. Thereafter, the Ld. Single Judge proceeded to issue following directions: 26. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, I find merit in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed by providing as under: (i) In terms of decision of the University Council taken in its meeting held on 05.06.2020, 84 supernumerary positions to be designated as Helpers in the pay band of Rs.4440-7440 shall be deemed to have been created w.e.f. 01.11.2018. (ii) The respondents shall go ahead with the process of regularization of 84 casual/ contractual engagees which include the petitioners against such posts/positions of Helpers and issue appropriate orders of regularization in favour of those who are found to have completed mandatory period of seven years of uninterrupted service and are otherwise found eligible in terms of University Notification dated 03.09.2014 (supra). (iii) The petitioners shall be entitled to their regularization with retrospective effect from the date they have attained. The eligibility for such regularization i.e. 01.11.2018 and shall also be entitled to arrears of their salary. (iv) The respondents shall do well to complete the entire exercise, culminating into issuance of regularization orders in favour of eligible casual/contractual engagees which may include the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon them. 21. Though some other grounds have also been taken by the appellants in this appeal about the rights of the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners do not have any vested right for regularization and, any such regularization is opposite to mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution which would deprive opportunity to other eligible candidates in respect of public employments and also as being opposed to the decision of Supreme Court Uma Devi (supra), we are not inclined to examine the aforesaid issues as these did not form the part of the pleadings before the Writ Court. Moreover, the University authorities having themselves initiated the process of regularization, cannot be allowed to resile from their earlier stand and adopt a contrary position. Thus, they are estopped from raising such pleas before us now. Moreover, the University authorities having themselves initiated the process of regularization, cannot be allowed to resile from their earlier stand and adopt a contrary position. Thus, they are estopped from raising such pleas before us now. The main objection raised by the University respondents in the writ petition was that the matter was placed before the then Governor, who was then transferred to Goa, who then expressed his inability to endorse the minutes of the University Council, because of which the University Council resolved on 05.06.2020 to refer the matter again to the Chancellor. 22. The appellants had taken the plea that the Government may not be bound by the decision of the University to approve creation of supernumerary posts and to sanction additional funds for the University inasmuch, it would be within the wisdom and discretion of the State to provide necessary financial assistance to the University. This plea is purely a question of law which does not involve general consideration of factual positions except the provisions of the Act of 1969, but since it has serious implications on the autonomy and the functioning of the University vis-à-vis the right of the Administration to provide necessary financial assistance to the University for its effective functioning, we will be examining this issue in detail. 23. Mr. R.A. Jan, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, however, heavily relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union Territory of J&K vs. Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh and Others in LPA No. 172 of 2020, has submitted that the issue regarding the functional autonomy of the University has been already settled and is no more res integra and the issue sought to be raised again by the University questioning the functional autonomy of the University cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. 24. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench was considering the functional autonomy of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST) as the Finance Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir had put on hold the appointment process of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientists in the stream of Veterinary Physiology, Live Stock Production Management, Veterinary Public health and Veterinary Biochemistry on the ground that financial concurrence of the Government prior to issuance of advertisement was mandatory and the SKUAST was required to route the proposal for appointment through the Administrative Department, i.e. Agricultural Production Department. 25. 25. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra) observed that SKUAST is a creature of a Statute unlike any other Department of the Government and the SKUAST is not obliged to seek financial concurrence from the Government for initiation of selection process to the posts which are already borne on its cadre. The Division Bench in the said case also observed that it is correct that the SKUAST primarily depends upon the grant given to it by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and various provisions of the SKUAST reveal that the authorities of the SKUAST constituted under the Act are dominated by the Government officials as ex-official members and it is also a fact that the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government Finance Department as the Financial Advisor is the member of the Board of Management but the question is whether this is sufficient to conclude that the SKUAST is obliged to seek financial concurrence before initiation of the process of selection. 26. In answering this question in the negative, the Division Bench, in the aforesaid case, observed as follows: “18. We are afraid, the mere fact that the respondent University depends mainly on the grants and funds provided by the Government or that because the officers of the Government dominate various authorities of the respondent University, does not denude the respondent University of its independent and autonomous character. The respondent University is creature of a Statute having its independent existence. It can launch and defend legal proceedings in its own name as is clear from the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Act. The University has to function in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1982 and the Statutes framed there-under and not in a manner which is alien or contrary to the Act and the Statutes.” 27. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra) also considered the contention raised before it by the learned Advocate General that in case, posts are filled up without prior financial concurrence of the Government, the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology may not be able to pay salaries to the appointees in absence of the financial support from the Government. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra) also considered the contention raised before it by the learned Advocate General that in case, posts are filled up without prior financial concurrence of the Government, the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology may not be able to pay salaries to the appointees in absence of the financial support from the Government. However, the Division Bench rejected the said contention being bereft of merit by holding that the posts which were advertised were duly sanctioned posts, and borne on the cadre of the SKUAST, and as per Section 37 of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982, the Government has to make lump sum grants of the University, inter-alia, on account of estimated net expenditure and once such budget is sanctioned, there is no justification in seeking financial approval for filling up the posts. The Division Bench observed that the annual accounts and budget estimates of the SKUAST are examined by the Finance Committee in which the Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Finance Department, happens to be the Financial Advisor and, as such, the nominee of the Government heading the Finance Department has a role at the time of preparation of the budget estimates as well as at the time of release of grants in favour of the University. Apart from financial matters, in the matters pertaining to appointments, the Commissioner/Secretary, Government Finance Department, has a vital role to play. Thus, in the decision making process of the University, the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department, plays a role as a member of the management and member of the Finance Committee and, as such, once the competent authority of the University decides to initiate the process for filling up the vacant posts, it would be preposterous to refer the matter again to the Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Finance Department, for his concurrence when the said officer is already a part of the decision making process. Accordingly, the Division Bench rejected the said plea. In this regard, we may refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Accordingly, the Division Bench rejected the said plea. In this regard, we may refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra) which read as under: “(21) The argument is without any merit for the reason that the posts for which advertisement notice has been floated by the respondent University are duly sanctioned posts borne on the cadre of the University and as per Section 37 of the Act, the Government has to make lump sum grants of the University, inter-alia, on account of estimated net expenditure of pay and allowance of the staff, contingencies, supplies and services of the University. Once budget in respect of expenditure on account of pay and allowances of staff etc. is sanctioned for a particular year by the Government in favour of the University, we do not feel that there is any justification in seeking financial approval for filling up of vacant posts. It is pertinent to note here that that annual accounts and budget estimates of the University are to be examined by the Finance Committee, of which the Commissioner/Secretary, Finance Department of the Government of J&K happens to be the Financial Advisor (Refer to Section 38 of the Act of 1982). So, the nominee of the Government heading the Finance Department has a role at the time of preparation of budget estimates as well as at the time of release of grants in favour of the University in accordance with the budget estimates. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department also happens to be a member of Board of Management of the University (Refer to Section 12 of the Act of 1982), which is vested with the power to approve recommendations for appointment of officers, teachers etc. of the University. Thus, not only in financial matters of the University but even in matters pertaining to appointments, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department has a vital role to play. Thus, in the decision making process of the University, the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department plays his role as a member of the Board of Management and as a member of Finance Committee. Thus, not only in financial matters of the University but even in matters pertaining to appointments, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department has a vital role to play. Thus, in the decision making process of the University, the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department plays his role as a member of the Board of Management and as a member of Finance Committee. Once the Competent Authority of the University decides to initiate process for filling up of vacant sanctioned posts, it would be preposterous to again refer the matter to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department, for his concurrence when the said officer is already a part of the decision making process. (22) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the submission of the appellant that prior financial concurrence is necessary for initiation of process of selection of vacant sanctioned posts borne on the cadre of the respondent University.” 28. Accordingly, it has been submitted by Mr. R.A. Jan, ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners), that the provisions of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982, are parimateria with the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, and, as such, in view of the above decision, there cannot be any doubt that the issue about the functional autonomy of the University has been settled and there is no need for the University to refer the matter again to the Chancellor to obtain concurrence of the decision of the University for regularization of the services of the contractual appointees. 29. It has also been stated at the Bar that the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology was initially a part of the Kashmir University but later on was carved out and made an autonomous university and, as such, there is great resemblance in the provisions of the respective Acts. 30. We have also gone through the provisions of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982 and these appear to be similar to the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 as far as management is concerned. 31. However, before we consider the relevance and applicability of the judgment in Dr. 30. We have also gone through the provisions of the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982 and these appear to be similar to the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 as far as management is concerned. 31. However, before we consider the relevance and applicability of the judgment in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra) in the present case, we may briefly refer to the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, as we have to examine the issue primarily in the context of the provisions of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969. 32. On examination of the provisions of the Act of 1969, the Kashmir University appears to be a State University and thus, cannot be said to be wholly autonomous in its functioning. This is clearly evident from the fact that in the bodies which constitute the University, the presence of a large number of State officials is quite significant. 33. Section 9 of the Act of 1969 provides that the following shall be the officers of the University: 1. Chancellor. 2. Pro-Chancellor. 3. Vice-Chancellor. 4. Pro-Vice-Chancellor, if any. 5. Financial Advisor. 6. Registrar. 7. Controller of Examinations. 8. Joint Registrar, if any. 9. Such other officers as the Statutes may declare to be the officers of the University. 34. The Chancellor as per Section 10 of the Act is the Governor (Lt. Governor) who shall be the head of both the Universities and shall, when present, preside at the meeting of the University Council and at the Convocations of both the Universities. Similarly, Pro-Chancellor is the Chief Minister of the Jammu and Kashmir State, now UT, who shall be the ex-officio of both the Universities. 35. It has been further provided under Section 11(3) of the Act that the Pro-Chancellor shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made, by such person or persons as he may direct, of a University, its buildings, laboratories, equipment, and of any institutions associated with the University and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the University. The Pro-Chancellor shall in every case give notice to the University of his intention to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made and the University concerned shall be entitled to be represented thereat. 36. Similarly, Section 11(4) of the Act provides that the Pro-Chancellor may address the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned with reference to the result of such inspection and inquiry and the Vice-Chancellor shall place the same before the Syndicate and also the University Council, of the University concerned, if necessary, with such advice as the Pro-Chancellor may offer upon the action to be taken thereon. 37. Section 11(5) of the Act provides that the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned shall then, within such time as the Pro-Chancellor may fix, submit to him a report of the action taken or proposed to be taken by the Syndicate together with the view which the University Council concerned may have expressed on the report. 38. Section 11(6) of the Act provides that if the Syndicate concerned does not, within a reasonable time, act to the satisfaction of the Pro-Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor may, after considering any explanation which the Syndicate concerned may furnish, issue such directions in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor concerned as he may think fit. 39. Thus, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 11 of the Act, it appears that the Pro-Chancellor has certain right to cause an inquiry regarding the affairs of the University and to do the needful for the effective functioning of the University. Since the Pro-Chancellor is the Chief Minister, who ordinarily manages the affairs of the State, he certainly has a unique role to play unlike other functionaries of the University. While the role of the Pro-Chancellor in the Union Territory Administration may not be extensive or powerful as that of the Chief Minister of the State, nevertheless the Pro-Vice Chancellor has been assigned certain roles which would enable him to monitor, examine the affairs of the University as provided under Section 11 of the Act. This unique power of the Pro-Chancellor to cause such inquiry in the affairs of the University perhaps emanates from the fact that he is also the Chief Minister of the State/UT. 40. This unique power of the Pro-Chancellor to cause such inquiry in the affairs of the University perhaps emanates from the fact that he is also the Chief Minister of the State/UT. 40. It may also be mentioned that the Financial Advisor, also an important functionary of the University, is ordinarily the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department who shall exercise general supervision over the funds of each university and shall advise it as regards its financial policy and he shall also present the annual estimates and the statement of accounts to the Syndicate and also exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes and Regulations. 41. A further reference to Sections 16, 21 and 22 of Act become imperative, being relevant, which read as under: “Section 16. Financial Advisor: (1) The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, or any other officer nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir shall be the ex officio Financial Adviser to both the Universities. (2) The Financial Adviser shall exercise general supervision over the funds of each University and shall advise it as regards its financial policy. (3) The Financial Advisor shall be an ex officio member of the University Council and the Syndicate of both the Universities. (4) The Financial Adviser shall: (a) present annual estimates and the statements of accounts to the Syndicate and the University Council. (b) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes and Regulations. Section 21. University Council: (1) There shall be a University Council in a university consisting of the following members, namely: (i) the Chancellor. (ii) the-Pro-Chancellor. (ii-a) the Education Minister. (iii) the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned. (iv) the Vice-Chancellor of the other University established under provision of this Act. (v) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University, if any. (vi) the Financial Advisor. (vii) the Educational Adviser to the Government or the officer designated by the Government to be in-charge of Higher Education. (viii) two Deans of the Faculties of the University concerned nominated by the Chancellor, by rotation. (ix) one Principal of an affiliated constituent college of the University concerned nominated by the Chancellor by rotation. (ix-a) two members of the teaching staff belonging either to the University or the constituent/affiliated colleges to be nominated by the Chancellor in consultation with Pro-Chancellor; and (x) two nominees of the Chancellor. (ix) one Principal of an affiliated constituent college of the University concerned nominated by the Chancellor by rotation. (ix-a) two members of the teaching staff belonging either to the University or the constituent/affiliated colleges to be nominated by the Chancellor in consultation with Pro-Chancellor; and (x) two nominees of the Chancellor. Section 22. Powers and functions of the University Council: (a)......................... (b)......................... (c) to approve the financial estimates framed by the Syndicate of the University. (d)......................... (j)..........................” 42. From the above what can be observed is that in the functioning of the University at various levels, there is an involvement of State officials who are also key functionaries of the State and as such, when any decision is taken by the University at various levels, members of these bodies, who are also functionaries of the State are expected to bring to the notice of the other members of the body of the University any issue, including financial implications, if any, so that appropriate decision can be taken by the such bodies at their level. This scheme would ensure that these bodies of the University are taking into consideration and are aware of such aspects which are of concern to the Government. 43. As a corollary, it can be said that in the absence of any reservations or objections from the State official members who are part of the University, a decision taken by such body of the University will be also acceptable to the Government, inasmuch as, any adverse view which the high officials of the Government may have on the issue, would have been brought to the notice of the body or such committee of the University by the State functionary members. We, therefore, are of the view that, if such a body or committee of the University takes a decision based on inputs received from the members who are also State functionaries, there can be a presumption that such a decision of the body or committee of the University has the tacit approval of the Government or at least, such a decision, is in consonance with the view of the State Administration. We say so, for the reason that principal functionaries of the Government who are members of the body or committee of the University also happen to be the important functionaries of the State and are part of the decision making process and bodies of the University. We say so, for the reason that principal functionaries of the Government who are members of the body or committee of the University also happen to be the important functionaries of the State and are part of the decision making process and bodies of the University. For example, the Chancellor himself is the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor of the administration of the State/Union Territories, the Pro-Chancellor is the Chief Minister, the Financial Advisor is the Secretary Finance of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the Secretary of the Higher Education of Government of Kashmir who is the Educational Advisor to the Government or the officer designated by the Government to be in-charge of Higher Education is also a member of the University Council. Therefore, if these important high officials of the State are part of the University at various levels, a presumption can be drawn that any such decision taken by the University at the various levels would also be in consonance with the views of the State/Union Territory. 44. As a result, if any of these important high state officials of the State do not approve any proposed action either of the University or any of the bodies of the University, such University body or committee could not have taken any decision which is contrary to the views of these important functionaries of the State. Therefore, we would hold that ordinarily, and under normal circumstances, any such decision taken by the various bodies or committee of the University would be in consonance with the view of the Administration, and under such circumstances, there should not be any difficulty in the implementation of the decision taken by the University as the State would not be expected to raise any objection to such decision taken by the University, which was done in association with the key functionaries of the State. 45. However, there can be certain circumstances where the State Government may legitimately raise objections to any of the decisions taken by the University. To take a hypothetical situation, it may be possible that in the committee or body of the University since the non-state official members are in majority, they may push through any decision by sheer majority inspite of objections or reservations expressed by the State functionaries who are also members of such body. To take a hypothetical situation, it may be possible that in the committee or body of the University since the non-state official members are in majority, they may push through any decision by sheer majority inspite of objections or reservations expressed by the State functionaries who are also members of such body. Under such circumstances, if such decision is not honoured by the State/Administration, or if any decision of the University is objected to by the State Government for germane reasons, such an act of the State cannot be said to be necessarily impinging upon the autonomy of the University. For example, if such body or committee of the University takes a decision which is plainly contrary and opposed to the State policy, in our opinion, the State Government would have a legitimate authority not to support the University in implementing or carrying out any such decision of the University. Similarly, if the University takes a decision, which has huge additional financial implications beyond the approved budget allocated for the University and if the University seeks additional financial support from the Administration, and if the Administration is of the view that it may not be able to bear such additional financial burden, the Administration may be within its legitimate right not to render such financial assistance to implement such decision of the University. However, such situations have to be examined on a case-to-case basis. 46. Such cases where the Administration does not support the University naturally would be an exception rather than the norm. The norm would be that the State Government would be expected to support and co-operate with the University in implementing the decision of the University, since the prominent functionaries of the State are also members of such body of the University in the decision making process, and if there were no reservations expressed by the official members of the State in such committee or body of the University when such decision was taken, it would be unreasonable for the State to oppose any such decision of the University except for rare circumstances as discussed above. 47. In our view, it would be more appropriate to say that there can be no absolute autonomy of the University of Kashmir viz-a-viz the State Administration, in the case of University seeks assistance from the Administration. 47. In our view, it would be more appropriate to say that there can be no absolute autonomy of the University of Kashmir viz-a-viz the State Administration, in the case of University seeks assistance from the Administration. While the Administration should ordinarily cooperate with the University in implementing the decisions of the University, as the key functionaries of the Administration are also important members of the University at various levels involved in the decision making process and, hence, privy to the decisions taken by the University, yet, there may be situations, where the State Administration through the Chancellor or the Pro-Chancellor for valid and germane reasons may not be able to support or co-operate with the University, which, however, will be exceptions, rather than the norm as otherwise, the functional autonomy of the University will be jeopardized and antithetical to the provisions of the Act of 1969. 48. Keeping the aforesaid perspective in mind, we will examine the present case at hand. 49. It cannot be denied that the policy decision of the University for granting the benefit of regularization to the contract/casual/ consolidated pay employees was taken long back in the year 2014 and the same has been acted upon as many as three times earlier in 2015, 2017 and 2018 and this is the fourth time the University is seeking to regularize such employees under the same policy. 50. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the act of the University in seeking to regularize the services of such employees does not appear to be an unusual exercise but based on a policy decision and such employees would have a legitimate expectation to get their services regularized as had been done to similarly situated employees on earlier three occasions in 2015, 2017 and 2018. 51. Yet, there is one aspect of the matter which requires a deeper consideration. The aforesaid process for regularization admittedly involves additional financial support from the Government as it entails creating supernumerary posts. Thus, this exercise involves additional financial liability beyond the normal budgetary provision allocated to the University by the Government. 52. In undertaking this exercise for regularization of the casual/contractual employees, the University has projected certain demands for additional funds to be sanctioned to cover the expenses likely to be incurred on account of the regularization of these employees towards their salaries and entitlements. 52. In undertaking this exercise for regularization of the casual/contractual employees, the University has projected certain demands for additional funds to be sanctioned to cover the expenses likely to be incurred on account of the regularization of these employees towards their salaries and entitlements. It would have been an entirely different matter, if the regularization process is undertaken in respect of posts which are already sanctioned for which there is already budgetary provision as in the case of Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh (supra). In such a case, the University will be within its right to undertake the exercise of regularization. But, that is not the case here, as it involves additional financial support from the Government. Since the University is seeking additional funds for the purpose of regularization, the State Administration would be within its right to examine the same and not to be bound by the decision of the University by incurring additional expenses. The State Administration being the ultimate custodian of the public fund, for germane reasons and in there be any change in the policies and such other relevant considerations, may decline to provide financial assistance, which could be also conveyed by the Chancellor himself, as he is also the Lt. Governor of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. 53. In the writ petition, it has been clearly mentioned that for the creation of 84 supernumerary positions of helper in the SL level of Rs. 14,800-47,100 for regularizing the services of those casual/contractual employees, the financial implication for the financial year 2018-19 for BE comes to Rs. 76.70 lacs for five months approximately, and for the financial year 2019-20 for RE it comes to Rs. 184.08 lacs in terms of the decision of the Finance Committee. Similarly, for creation of additional supernumerary position of helpers the financial implication is Rs. 8.16 lacs for the financial year 2019-20. 54. Thus, the proposed regularization of the aforesaid employees would involve incurring additional expenses of more than Rs. 200 lakhs as it entails creating supernumerary posts. 184.08 lacs in terms of the decision of the Finance Committee. Similarly, for creation of additional supernumerary position of helpers the financial implication is Rs. 8.16 lacs for the financial year 2019-20. 54. Thus, the proposed regularization of the aforesaid employees would involve incurring additional expenses of more than Rs. 200 lakhs as it entails creating supernumerary posts. If the said expenses to be incurred by the University are to be borne by the University from its own available funds without seeking any additional financial assistance from the State/UT authority, there cannot be any impediment from the Administration in implementing the decision of the University to regularize the casual/contractual employees and the Chancellor would have no right to stall the same, if already approved by the University Council, the highest decision making body of the University. However, since the University authorities are seeking additional financial assistance from the State/UT administration, the Administration certainly would have a say as to whether to accept such a request for financial assistance or not. This autonomy of the State to render or not to render financial assistance to the University cannot be influenced or commanded by a judicial mandate unless the act of the State is plainly arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal. 55. In the present case, it is clearly evident that since the process of regularization involves additional financial assistance from the State Administration, it would be certainly prudent on the part of the University Council to have the decision endorsed by the Chancellor, who happens to be the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory so that the decision of the University gets the support of the Administration for effective implementation of the process of regularization. If the UT Administration for valid and germane reasons is unable to extend the financial assistance, it cannot be said that merely because the University Council is the supreme body of the University and that it had taken a decision, the State Administration would have no say in the matter. However as discussed above, the State Administration also cannot deny financial assistance except for germane and valid reasons, since the Administration had extended financial assistance to the University on three earlier occasions. Accordingly, the Administration would be expected to render such financial assistance and the Chancellor would also be expected to endorse the decision of the University. However as discussed above, the State Administration also cannot deny financial assistance except for germane and valid reasons, since the Administration had extended financial assistance to the University on three earlier occasions. Accordingly, the Administration would be expected to render such financial assistance and the Chancellor would also be expected to endorse the decision of the University. However, merely because on three earlier occasions, the Administration had provided financial assistance to the University for the purpose of regularization of the casual/contract employees does not ipso facto-mean that the Administration will be obligated to provide financial assistance for the fourth time also, inasmuch as, it would depend on the financial condition of the State/UT and other relevant considerations. 56. In the present appeal what we have noticed is that contrary to the earlier decision taken by the University Council in approving the process of regularization of 84 casual/contractual employees, the University Council subsequently, again sought to refer matter to the Chancellor who is none other than the Lieutenant Governor of the UT through the Financial Advisor for endorsement of the decision of the University. As discussed above, even if the University Council which consists of members who are key functionaries of the State Administration, had already taken a decision to regularize the aforesaid contractual employees, if the University Council again seeks to refer the matter to Chancellor through the Financial Advisor, the same cannot be said to be wholly illegal and not permissible. In fact, it would a prudent act, since the decision of the University involves additional expenses which the University is seeking from the Administration. 57. As discussed above the Chancellor presently is none other than the Lieutenant Governor of the UT. Similarly, the Financial Advisor of the University is none other than the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or such officer nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir who has the power to exercise general supervision over the funds of the University and to advise the University as regards the Financial Policy as provided under Section 6(2) of the Act. 58. Even though the University Council had taken a decision earlier for regularization of these casual/contractual employees, if the University Council felt that matter would be required to be re-examined by referring to the Chancellor who is none other than the Lt. 58. Even though the University Council had taken a decision earlier for regularization of these casual/contractual employees, if the University Council felt that matter would be required to be re-examined by referring to the Chancellor who is none other than the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory, as the decision of the University involves additional financial assistance from the Administration, and without the financial support assistance given by the Administration, the said decision for regularization cannot be implemented, the aforesaid course of action taken by the University cannot be said to be wholly illegal or beyond jurisdiction or that it would impinge upon the autonomy of the University as observed by the Ld. Single Judge. 59. What appears is that the decision of the University Council to refer the matter to the Chancellor again through the Financial Advisor was influenced by the serious financial implication it may have on the University as the aforesaid decision of the University to regularize the employees cannot be implemented without the financial assistance from the State Administration. If the Court has to issue a Mandamus as sought by the writ petitioners, which was allowed by the Ld. Single Judge, it will entrench upon the fiscal autonomy of the Administration. This Court, therefore, cannot issue a mandamus to the State in the present case for providing financial assistance as the management of financial affairs would be within the domain of the executive, and unless such an act of the executive is found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 60. Having said so, we are also of the view that the Administration also cannot out rightly reject any request from the University for financial assistance for regularization of its employees inasmuch as on earlier three occasions, the State/UT Administration had extended financial assistance for regularization of casual/contractual employees. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, the Administration would be expected to render financial assistance to the University this time also, as otherwise, it may breach the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the Administration cannot act arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner. Having said that, it cannot be also held that the Administration would have no option, but to provide financial assistance to the University and the Administration can withheld financial assistance for germane and sufficient reasons. But such a decision of the Administration, if denies financial assistance will be subject to judicial review. 61. Having said that, it cannot be also held that the Administration would have no option, but to provide financial assistance to the University and the Administration can withheld financial assistance for germane and sufficient reasons. But such a decision of the Administration, if denies financial assistance will be subject to judicial review. 61. After having given our view as above, we will examine the issue to the relevancy and applicability of the decision cited by Mr. R.A. Jan, Learned Senior counsel for the respondents. A careful examination of the order dated 23.08.2021 passed in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh’s case (supra), would however, shows that the issue raised therein for consideration was about seeking of approval of the Government for filling up certain posts which were already borne on the cadre of the SKUAST. The Division Bench also observed in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the said decision that the posts required to be filled up were duly sanctioned posts and accordingly, took the view that since these posts were sanctioned posts and borne on the cadre of the SKUAST, there was no need to seek financial concurrence for initiating the process for filling up the vacant posts. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that if the posts are sanctioned and borne on the cadre, it would ipso facto mean that there would be budgetary provisions already made to meet the expenses by way of salary and other entitlements which will arise out of filling up the posts. But in the present case, this is not the situation. The present case deals with a proposal for regularizing services of contractual appointees by creating supernumerary posts which would entail additional expenses and these supernumerary posts are not yet borne on the cadre, and as such, we are of the view that the said decision in Dr. Asif Ahmad Sheikh’s case (supra) will not be applicable in the present case, though we are also in agreement with the principle laid down that if the posts are already sanctioned posts and borne on the cadre, no financial concurrence is required from the State authorities. 62. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there is no illegality in referring the matter again to the Chancellor for his consideration as sought to be done by the University authorities. 62. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there is no illegality in referring the matter again to the Chancellor for his consideration as sought to be done by the University authorities. However, we hope and trust that in view of the earlier exercises undertaken as many as three times for regularization, the Chancellor would endorse the decision of the University for regularization of the 84 casual/contract/consolidated pay employees and the Administration would render financial assistance for the same. If the Chancellor endorses the decision of the University, the private respondents/writ petitioners would be entitled to be regularised as directed by the Ld. Single Judge in paragraph no. 26 of the impugned order. 63. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we were not able to agree with the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2022 passed in WP (C) No. 1797 of 2020 passed by the Ld. Single Judge and the same is set aside, however, with the modification as discussed above. 64. We also make it clear that in the event, the Chancellor and/or the Administration take any view not favourable to these employees/writ petitioners for regularisation, the same may be notified to the writ petitioners by a reasoned order and such an act and decision will be subject to judicial review, and the writ petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court again for redressal of their grievances. 65. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

University of Kashmir the Registrar v. Sabiya Rashid