whether the appellant working as Assistant Director in CACEE was entitled to continue till 60 years of age which was the age of retirement of Teacher of the Kerala University or he was to retire at the age of 56 years.? S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another, 1997 (8) SCC 350. In the above case the appellant was working as a Director of Physical Director in the Bapatla Agricultural College. The appellant was initially appointed as Physical Director in Agricultural College which was a Government College which College stood transferred to the Andhra Pradesh University, when it was formed, the services of the appellant stood transferred to the Agricultural University and he continued to work as Director in the said University. This Court noted the definition of Teacher in the University Statutes and came to the conclusion that Physical Director is also Teacher within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963. The said judgment has no bearing in the present case since admittedly the appellant in the said case was working in the University as Director of Physical Education. 37. We may also notice one of the letters dated 31.10.2014 brought on record as Annexure-P-17 to the petition which is a communication by the Government of Kerala according sanction for merging the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education & Extension which is to the following effect: “ORDER Sanction is accorded for merging the Centre for Adult, Continuing Education & Extension (CACEE) which is functioning as Self Financing Centre under the University of Kerala, with Institute of Distance Education so that the department can function in dual mode as Institute of Distance and Adult Continuing Education. (By order of the Governor) Dr. K.M. ABRAHAM Additional Chief Secretary.” 38. As per the Government letter Centre has been merged with Institute of Distance Education, what are the consequences of merger of Centre with Institute of Distance Education have neither been explained by the appellant nor there are any material to come to the conclusion that by such merger the Centre shall become Centre maintained by the University. The above letter of the Government also supports our conclusion that Centre is not maintained by the University and it is Self-Financing Centre. The said letter also in no manner supports the case of the appellant as the claim of the appellant as raised in this appeal. 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1641 of 2020
(arising out of SLP(C)No.26880 of 2016)
P. GOPINATHAN PILLAI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant for
quashing the judgment of Kerala High Court dated
08.07.2016 by which Writ Petition (C)No.12179 of 2016
filed by the appellant claiming to continue in
service till he attains the age of 60 years has been
dismissed.

  1. The brief facts of the case for deciding this
    appeal are:
    The appellant was appointed as Project Officer in
    the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and
    2
    Extension (hereinafter referred to as “CACEE”). The
    appellant joined at the CACEE with effect from
    26.12.1989. By letter dated 01.02.1990 of the Deputy
    Registrar of the University of Kerala, University
    accorded sanction to the appointment of the appellant
    as Project Officer against the post at the CACEE. The
    University of Kerala has also implemented the
    University Grants Commission (UGC) scale of pay to
    the CACEE staff. The appellant was also given the
    UGC pay scale. The Centre has issued various
    certificates to the appellant that he has been
    teaching various courses like the Post Graduate
    Diploma etc. On 07.12.2012, the appellant was
    promoted as Assistant Director in the CACEE. The
    University Grants Commission revised the scale of pay
    of the CACEE at par i.e. Director, Assistant Director
    and Project Officer corresponding to the pay scale of
    Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader,
    Lecturer. Writ Petition (C) No.12179 of 2016 was
    filed by the appellant before the High Court of
    Kerala seeking a declaration that the appellant is a
    Teacher of the University of Kerala and entitled to
    3
    continue in service upto the age of 60 years.
  2. The appellant’s case was that he cannot be
    retired at the age of 56 years. The appellant in his
    writ petition relied on earlier judgments of the
    Kerala High Court including judgment delivered by the
    High Court with regard to the post of Director and
    Assistant Director of CACEE itself. The appellant
    also filed certificates issued by the Centre to the
    appellant that he while working in the Centre has
    been associated with Teaching Research Extension and
    other activities. When the writ petition came for
    consideration before a learned Single Judge, noticing
    a conflict between two judgments i.e. in (1) W.A.
    1099 of 1988 and (2) W.A. 180 of 1992, the learned
    Single Judge referred the matter to be heard by a
    Division Bench.
  3. The case of the appellant was contested by the
    University. The Division Bench after scanning the two
    judgments with regard to which conflict was noticed,
    observed that the said judgments were delivered in
    the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in each
    case and there was no justification for reference.
    4
    The Division Bench proceeded to consider the merits
    of the controversy and held that the appellant is not
    a Teacher of the University and is not entitled to
    continue till the age of 60 years. The writ petition
    was consequently dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment
    of the Division Bench, this appeal has filed by the
    appellant.
  4. We have heard Shri A. Raghunath, learned counsel
    appearing for the appellant and Shri Jogy Scaria,
    learned counsel for the respondent.
  5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
    the appellant is working as Assistant Director in
    CACEE, a Teacher defined in Section 2(27) and 2(28)
    of the Kerala University Act, 1974, hence, he is
    entitled to all the benefits of a Teacher of the
    University including the age of retirement being 60
    years. It is submitted that the University of Kerala
    itself placed the appellant in the senior scale for
    lecturer under the UGC Scheme with effect from
    24.05.1997.
  6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
    5
    UGC way back in 1993 directed that the staff working
    in CACEE be treated at par with other Teaching staff
    working in other faculties of the Universities. It is
    submitted that the High Court of Kerala has delivered
    several judgments declaring that the staff of CACEE
    particularly posts of Project Director, Assistant
    Director etc. are ‘Teachers’ and entitled to continue
    till the age of 60 years.
  7. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to
    various certificates issued by CACEE submits that the
    appellant has been recognised as being engaged in
    teaching and research work. It is submitted that the
    High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition of
    the appellant by holding that the appellant is not
    the Teacher of the University as defined in Section
    2(28) of the Kerala University Act.
  8. Learned counsel for the University refuting the
    submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
    contends that CACEE in which the appellant was
    employed is not a Statutory University Department of
    study and research as defined in the statutes of the
    University. CACEE is not affiliated to the
    6
    University. CACEE is one of the many Schemes
    sponsored by outside funding Agencies like UGC.
    Initially CACEE was started on a temporary basis as a
    planned Scheme established by the Government of India
    for the purpose of eradicating illiteracy in the
    society and was operative till 31.03.1997. No Agency
    having come forward to sponsor the Scheme. The
    Syndicate of the University taking into account the
    despair of the staff took a view and resolved to
    restructure CACEE as a Self-Supporting Centre. The
    normal date of the retirement of the employees of
    CACEE is 56 years, some of the employees of CACEE who
    were allowed to continue upto to the age of 60 years
    wherever there was direction of the High Court in
    respective cases. The appellant was never appointed
    on a teaching post rather he was appointed on an
    administrative post which was a temporary post. The
    judgments of the Kerala High Court relied by the
    counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and
    they were delivered in the facts of each case.
  9. We have considered the submissions of learned
    counsel for the parties and perused the records.
    7
  10. The only point to be determined in this appeal is
    as to whether the appellant working as Assistant
    Director in CACEE was entitled to continue till 60
    years of age which was the age of retirement of
    Teacher of the Kerala University or he was to retire
    at the age of 56 years.
  11. The claim in the writ petition was that he is a
    Teacher of the University within the meaning of
    Kerala University Act, 1974. Hence, he was entitled
    for the benefit of retirement of the age as
    prescribed for the Teachers of the University. We may
    first notice the provisions of the Kerala University
    Act, 1974, the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977
    and Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978.
  12. Section 2 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 is a
    definition clause. Section 2 sub-section (2) defines
    ‘affiliated college’. Section 2(7) defines ‘college’.
    Section 2(19) defines ‘recognised institution’.
    Section 2(27) defines ‘teacher’ and Section 2(28)
    defines ‘teacher of the University’.
  13. In the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977,
    8
    Statute 2 sub-clause (f) defines ‘Department’ which
    is to the following effect:
    “Section 2(f)”Department” means a
    Kerala University Department of Study
    and/or Research or a Department functioning
    for a specific purpose maintenance at the
    cost of the Kerala University Fund;”
  14. Chapter 3 of the Statutes deals with “Teachers of
    the University”. Statute 10 under Chapter 3 is as
    follows:
    “10. Applicability of certain Rules to
    University Teachers.- Subject to the
    provisions of the Kerala University Act,
    1974 and the Statutes’ issued thereunder,
    the Kerala Service Rules, the Kerala State
    and Subordinate Service Rules, and the
    Kerala Government Servant’s Conduct Rules
    for the time being in force as amended from
    time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply
    to the teachers of the University, with
    such modifications as the context may
    require and the expression “Government” in
    those Rules shall be construed as a
    reference to the “University”.
    Provided that the age of retirement of
    teachers of the University shall be 60.”
  15. The Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978,
    Chapter XVII deals with scales of pay, qualification
    etc. of various posts in the University. The Schedule
    9
    to the Ordinances contains details of all the posts
    in the University including the posts in different
    Departments, Institutes, Colleges.
  16. The appellant admittedly was appointed in CACEE
    with effect from 26.12.1989 which received the
    sanction of the University by letter dated
    01.02.1990. Letter dated 01.02.1990 has been brought
    on the record as Annexure-P-2. The Order dated
    01.02.1990 reads:
    “ORDER
    Selection was made to the posts of
    Assistant Directors and Project Officers in
    the Centre for Adult Education and
    Extension, University of Kerala. The
    Director, Centre for Adult Education and
    Extension has, vide his letter read above,
    reported that the following officers have
    reported for duty.
    1.Dr. V. Reghu – Assistant Director
    2.Smt. A.R. Supriya – Assistant Director
    3.Sri.P. Gopinathan
    Pillai – Project Officer
    4.Sri. K. Mohandas – Project Officer
    Sanction has therefore been accorded by
    the
    Vice Chancellor to:-
    10


”All the above appointments are made
against the posts at the Centre for Adult
Education and Extension created temporarily
till 31.03.1990 coming under Point No.16 of
the new 20 point programme relating to
eradication of illiteracy and spread of
Universal Elementary Education.
K.M. MATHEW
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Admn-1)”

  1. The judgment of the High Court does not mention
    any details of the establishment, nature and
    organisation of the Centre i.e. CACEE. However, in
    the counter-affidavit (sworn by Dr. M. Jayaprakas,
    Registrar-in-charge of the University of Kerala)
    filed in this appeal, the details of Centre have been
    elaborately pleaded. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
    counter-affidavit which are relevant for the present
    case are as follows:
    “5. It is submitted that Centre for Adult
    continuing Education and Extension
    (CACEE) in which the petitioner was an
    employee is not a Department or
    Institution instituted by Kerala
    University Authorities viz, the Senate,
    Syndicate or any other statutory body
    under the provisions of the aforesaid
    11
    Act or Statutes. But the CACEE is one of
    the many schemes sponsored by outside
    funding agencies like UGC.
  2. The Centre for Adult continuing
    Education and Extension (hereinafter
    referred as CACEE) is not a Department
    or an institution or even a Study Centre
    instituted under the Kerala University
    Act, Statutes or Regulations. CACEE was
    only one among the schemes sponsored and
    functioning by way of funding from
    outside agencies like the UGC. Initially
    CACEE was started on a temporary basis
    as a planned Scheme established by the
    Government of India, for the purpose of
    eradicating illiteracy in the society
    and was operative till 31.03.1997.
    Thereafter no agency had come forward to
    sponsor the scheme. All members,
    including the staff were under the
    threat of termination from service. In
    such circumstances, the Syndicate of the
    Respondents taking into account the
    despair of the staff, took a lenient
    view and resolved to restructure, CACEE,
    as a Self-Supporting Centre, on the
    specific ground that the total
    expenditure of the Scheme, should be
    limited to the revenue generated and
    remitted to the Kerala University, by
    the Scheme. The Syndicate further
    resolved that the salary for the staff
    of CACEE would be paid out of the fund
    remitted to the University, and in
    return, the University would render all
    the Administrative work of CACEE,
    without any overhead charges or fee. As
    per the terms of the Scheme, the staff
    therein, were to retire at the age of
  3. The service conditions, of a member
    under the Kerala University Service, are
    governed by the Kerala University Act,
    12
    Statutes and Ordinances. All members
    under the Kerala University service are
    appointed against posts instituted as
    per the Kerala University Act, Rules and
    Regulations. Facts being so, the staff
    under CACEE, are not governed by the
    Kerala University Act. Ordinance, and
    Statutes as they are not members under
    the Kerala University Service.”
  4. Although rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by
    the appellant to the above counter-affidavit of the
    University but neither there is any reply to the
    counter-affidavit nor details mentioned in paragraphs
    5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit regarding nature of
    the establishment of the Centre has been refuted. We,
    thus, proceed to rely on the pleadings made in the
    counter-affidavit regarding the establishment and the
    nature of the Centre.
  5. The Centre i.e. CACEE came to be established on
    temporary basis as planned Scheme established by the
    Government of India for the purpose of eradicating
    illiteracy. The University Grants Commission also
    funded the Centre and as pleaded in the counter-
    13
    affidavit after 31.03.1997 no Agency having come
    forward to sponsor the Scheme the Syndicate of the
    University resolved to restructure CACEE as a SelfSupporting Centre. The University has undertaken to
    render all the Administrative work of CACEE.
  6. The Schedule to the First Ordinances, 1978 of
    the Kerala University contains designations of all
    posts of University including teaching and nonteaching posts in various Departments and Centres
    like University, Service and Instructions Centres,
    Computer Centre, English Language Teaching Centre but
    posts in CACEE are not included in the Schedule of
    the Ordinances which obviously indicates that posts
    in Centre are not posts in the University. Chapter 3
    of the Statutes of the University specifically
    provides for the Institution of Posts. Statute 1
    under Chapter 3 is as follows:
    14
    “1. Institution of Posts.- The Senate shall
    be competent to institute Professorships,
    Readerships, Lecturerships, and such other
    teaching and research posts required by the
    University on the motion of the Syndicate
    and/or on the proposals of the Academic
    Council therefore endorsed by the
    Syndicate.”
  7. Had all the posts in the Centre have been
    instituted by Senate, they ought to have been
    included in the University, the posts of the Centre
    are not the posts instituted by the Syndicate and not
    the posts of the University.
  8. We come to the definition of Teacher as defined
    in Section 2 of the Kerala University Act, 1974.
    Section 2(27) provides as:
    “2(27) “teacher” means a principal,
    professor, associate professor, assistant
    professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or
    such other person imparting instruction or
    supervising research in any of the colleges
    or recognised institutions and whose
    appointment has been approved by the
    University;”
  9. The condition precedent is that such person
    15
    should be imparting instruction or supervising
    research in any of the Colleges of the recognised
    institutions. Section 2(28) reads as:
    “2(28).”teacher of the University” means a
    person employed as teacher in any
    institution maintained by the University.”
  10. College and recognised institution have been
    defined in Section 2(7) and 2(19) as follows:
    “2(7). “college” means an institution
    maintained by, or affiliated to the
    University, in which instruction is
    provided in accordance with the provisions
    of the Statutes, Ordinances and
    Regulations;
    2(19). “recognised institution” means an
    institution for research or special
    studies, other than an affiliated college
    recognised as such by the University;”
  11. The Centre is not a College within the meaning
    of Section 2(7) since as per the pleadings of the
    University, Centre is neither maintained nor
    affiliated to the University. There are no materials
    on record also to indicate that the Centre is an
    institution recognised by the University within the
    16
    meaning of Section 2(19). It is true that the Centre
    is being run as a Centre under the administrative
    control of the University. The definition of Teacher
    of University in Section 2(28) also refers to a
    person employed as Teacher in any institution
    maintained by the University. The High Court in the
    impugned judgment has held that the appellant was
    never employed as Teacher hence he is not covered by
    Section 2(28). From the pleadings on the record and
    the materials which are brought on the record it is
    apparent that the appellant is not covered by
    definition of Teacher or the Teacher of the
    University under Section 2(27) and 2(28) of the
    Kerala University Act, 1974. When the appellant does
    not fulfil the requirement of definition of Teacher
    or Teacher of University, he cannot claim
    applicability of Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the
    Statutes.
    17
  12. Much emphasis has been laid down by the learned
    counsel for the appellant on different certificates
    issued by the Centre where it has been mentioned that
    the appellant is imparting instruction in various
    courses like Post Graduate Diploma in Extension and
    Field Outreach, Diploma in Non-Formal Education,
    Master of Human Resource Management and PG
    Certificate Courses etc. Even if it is assumed that
    the appellant is imparting instruction in different
    courses in the Centre that itself cannot make the
    appellant Teacher within the meaning of Section 2(27)
    and 2(28). The appellant having never been appointed
    as Teacher he is not covered by the definition of
    Teacher of the University.
  13. Now we need to notice various judgments of the
    Kerala High Court which have been relied by the
    learned counsel for the appellant in support of his
    case. The first judgment which has been relied by the
    18
    learned counsel for the appellant and has also been
    relied in subsequent judgments of the Kerala High
    Court itself is a Division Bench judgment in
    C.A.No.180 of 1992D decided on 20.07.2000 in Dr. K.
    Sivadasan Pillai vs. The University of Kerala and
    others. Dr. Pillai was working as a Reader in the
    Department of Education of the University of Kerala
    whereafter he was appointed as Director of the Centre
    i.e. CACEE. The writ petition filed by Dr. Pillai was
    dismissed hence the appeal was filed. The Division
    Bench granted interim stay under which Dr. Sivadasan
    was continued in the post and retired at the age of
    60 years. The Division Bench in its decision made
    following observation in paragraph 2 of the judgment:
    “2…………The appellant/petitioner was a Reader
    in the University. Thereafter he was
    selected and appointed as the Director of
    Centre for Adult Education and Extension.
    The Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University
    had given a certificate, Annexure IX,
    wherein it is stated that
    appellant/petitioner, Director, Centre for
    19
    Adult Education and Extension, University
    of Kerala, was teaching students of Post
    Masters Diploma in Adult Education and
    Continuing Education while he was the ProVice-Chancellor of the University. Several
    other documents were also produced by the
    appellant/petitioner to show that he was
    holding the post of teaching as a Director
    in the Adult Education Department. It is
    contended that appellant/petitioner did not
    produce these documents in the original
    petition because there was no such counter
    by the University.”
  14. Dr, Sivadasan worked as Reader in the University
    and finally continued till 60 years because as Reader
    he was admittedly worked as a Teacher of the
    University. It appears that before he attained the
    age of superannuation as Teacher, he was appointed as
    Director of the Centre, he had lien on the post of
    Reader as well as he was entitled to continue till
    the age of 60 years with all retiral benefits. The
    conclusion of the High Court itself was to the
    following effect:
    “3……………The documents produced by the
    petitioner shows that he was holding the
    post of Teacher while he was working as
    Director in the Centre for Adult Education
    and Extension.”
    20
  15. The above case, thus, was a case where the
    appellant was holding a Teaching post in the
    University and thereafter, he was appointed as
    Director and had rightly held by the High Court to
    continue him till 60 years.
  16. The next judgment relied by the counsel for the
    appellant is the judgment of Kerala High Court dated
    14.06.2005 in W.P.(C) No.3141 of 2004(Y), Dr. B.
    Vijayakumar vs. The University of Kerala and others.
    In the above case the writ-petitioner was also
    working as Director, and reliance was placed on the
    judgment in Writ Appeal No.180 of 1992. The learned
    Single Judge relying on the Division Bench judgment
    in Dr. Sivadasan Pillai allowed the writ petition. In
    paragraph 3 of the judgment learned Single Judge
    himself has observed as follows:
    “3. The Learned Counsel for the University
    would submit that the said Dr. K. Sivadasan
    Pillai was retaining his lien in the
    Department of Education and therefore his
    case cannot be treated at par with that of
    the petitioner. When a Division Bench of
    this Court categorically holds that the
    post of Director in CACEE is the post of a
    teacher and therefore the incumbent is
    21
    entitled to continue till he attains the
    age of 60 years, then I need not look any
    further to hold that the petitioner also is
    holding the post of teacher and therefore
    entitled to continue till he attains 60
    years of age. Therefore, I have absolutely
    no hesitation in holding that the
    petitioner is holding the post of a teacher
    as Director in the CACEE. As such, he is
    entitled to continue in service till he
    attains the age of 60 years. It is declared
    so. The petitioner will be entitled to all
    consequential benefits. The Writ Petition
    is allowed as above but without no order as
    to costs.”
  17. Learned Single Judge although noted the
    distinguishing feature of case of Dr. Pillai that he
    had lien in the Department of Education, but without
    adverting to the distinguish facts of Division Bench
    judgment and without adverting as to how the writ
    petitioner was a Teacher within the meaning of Kerala
    University Act, the writ petition was allowed. The
    above judgment of the learned Single Judge having
    mechanically followed the Division Bench judgment in
    W.A.No.180 of 1992 cannot come to the rescue of the
    appellant.
  18. Another judgment relied by the appellant is the
    judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 14.02.2006 in
    22
    Writ Petition (C) No.25669 of 2004(E) in Dr. V. Reghu
    vs. The University of Kerala and another. Learned
    Single Judge in the above case also relying on the
    Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.180 of 1992 filed
    by Dr.K. Sivadasan Pillai has made the following
    observation in paragraph 8:
    “8……………There is overwhelming evidence and
    materials on record to show that the
    petitioner by discharging the duties of
    Assistant Director of CACEE has been
    imparting instruction at the Centre right
    from his appointment in the year 1980.”
  19. Learned Single Judge has, thus, relied on the
    claim of the writ petitioner that while discharging
    the duty of Assistant Director the petitioner has
    been imparting instruction at the Centre. How only by
    imparting instruction the petitioner had become
    Teacher within the meaning of Section 2(27) and 2(28)
    was neither been dealt with nor considered.
  20. Another case which has been relied by the
    appellant is judgment dated 25.05.2012 in W.P.
    (C)No.15447 of 2007(L), M.N.C. Bose vs. University of
    Kerala and Ors. In the above case, the writ
    23
    petitioner was working as Director of Students
    Services which was a non-teaching post as per
    Ordinances of the University which fact was noticed
    in paragraph 2 of the judgment. Learned Single Judge
    proceeded to held that while working as Director of
    Students Services the writ petitioner as per duties
    and functions was imparting instruction. The said
    case has no relevance in the facts of the present
    case since the post of Students Services was
    admittedly post within the University whereas the
    none of the posts in Centre is included in the
    Ordinances hence the said case is clearly
    distinguishable.
  21. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied
    on the judgment of this Court in S. Ramamohana Rao
    vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another, 1997
    (8) SCC 350. In the above case the appellant was
    working as a Director of Physical Director in the
    Bapatla Agricultural College. The appellant was
    initially appointed as Physical Director in
    Agricultural College which was a Government College
    which College stood transferred to the Andhra Pradesh
    24
    University, when it was formed, the services of the
    appellant stood transferred to the Agricultural
    University and he continued to work as Director in
    the said University. This Court noted the definition
    of Teacher in the University Statutes and came to the
    conclusion that Physical Director is also Teacher
    within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Andhra
    Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963. The said
    judgment has no bearing in the present case since
    admittedly the appellant in the said case was working
    in the University as Director of Physical Education.
  22. We may also notice one of the letters dated
    31.10.2014 brought on record as Annexure-P-17 to the
    petition which is a communication by the Government
    of Kerala according sanction for merging the Centre
    for Adult, Continuing Education & Extension which is
    to the following effect:
    “ORDER
    Sanction is accorded for merging the
    Centre for Adult, Continuing Education &
    Extension (CACEE) which is functioning as
    Self Financing Centre under the University
    of Kerala, with Institute of Distance
    Education so that the department can
    function in dual mode as Institute of
    Distance and Adult Continuing Education.
    25
    (By order of the Governor)
    Dr. K.M. ABRAHAM
    Additional Chief Secretary.”
  23. As per the Government letter Centre has been
    merged with Institute of Distance Education, what are
    the consequences of merger of Centre with Institute
    of Distance Education have neither been explained by
    the appellant nor there are any material to come to
    the conclusion that by such merger the Centre shall
    become Centre maintained by the University. The above
    letter of the Government also supports our conclusion
    that Centre is not maintained by the University and
    it is Self-Financing Centre. The said letter also in
    no manner supports the case of the appellant as the
    claim of the appellant as raised in this appeal.
  24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not
    find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed
    accordingly.
    ………………….J.
    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
    ………………….J.
    ( M.R. SHAH )
    New Delhi,
    April 08, 2020.