Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. The civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dated 30th November, 1991 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1041 of 1991. It was filed by the respondent in which the prayer was for a mandamus to the appellant-Institute to regularise the services of the respondent forthwith as Executive in the Institute of Management Development, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The appellant is an Institute established inter alia with the object of undertaking applied scientific, industrial and management research, more particularly, in the field of applied sciences with the emphasis on technical management including production management, financial management, marketing management etc. It is an autonomous body. It is governed by the rules of The Association of the Institute.

4. The respondent was first appointed in the appellant-Institute as a Research Executive on a consolidated fixed compensation of Rs. 1,250/- per month on contract basis for a period of three months. It was specifically stated in the order that it was purely on ad hoc basis,, liable for termination without any notice on either side.

5. By an order dated 18th of July, 1988 the appointment of respondent was extended for a further period of three months with effect from 2nd August, 1988 on the same terms and conditions. Here again, it requires to be noted that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis. On 28th of January, 1989 a fresh office order was made appointing the respondent as Training Executive on a contract basis for a period of three months. The consolidated pay was fixed at Rs. 1,500 / - per month. Here also, the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and terminable without notice by either side. On 20th June, 1989 she was appointed on a newly created post of Executive carrying a pay scale of Rs. 770-1600. This appointment was also on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and it was terminable by one months notice on either side. On 5th January, 1990 another ad hoc appointment was made for a period of three months. Though by efflux of time the appointment came to an end on 21st of March, 1990 yet she was continued beyond the prescribed period.

6. On 13th July, 1990 she submitted a resignation letter. This letter of resignation was forwarded to the Director of the Institute who accepted the same by an order dated 31st July, 1990.

7. Notwithstanding the acceptance of resignation, on 25th of August, 1990, the respondent made a further request that her services might be continued for some more time in the appellant-Institute. On this request, the respondent was appointed on a contractual basis as a Training Executive on a consolidated compensation of Rs. 2400/- per month. On this occasion also, the appointment was purely on a ad hoc basis terminable without notice.

8. On 3rd of January, 1991 a Committee of the Institute went into the question of abolition of redundant posts. The report was submitted by the Committee to the effect that several posts including the posts of Training Supervisors and Research Executive had become redundant. Therefore, the Committee recommended their abolition. Accepting the report of the Committee on 14th January, 1991 five posts were abolished including the post of Training Supervisors and Research Executive with effect from the last training programme of the current financial year.

9. Since the appointment of the respondent was coming to an end at the end of February, 1991 she preferred W.P. 1041 of 1991.

10. Inter alia it was urged that there was no justification for not giving a regular or a "permanent appointment to her. She was compelled to submit her resignation and thereafter was given a permanent consolidated salary. Thus, the action of the Institute was arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. It was further urged that there was every need for continuing the post.

11. The learned Judge accepted this contention and ultimately, making the rul