1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner was employed with respondent no.2 which is an institution run by the respondent no.1, as a Lecturer in Philosophy in Foundation Course. The petitioner on initial selection joined respondent no.2 college on 27.6.1994. Initial appointment of the petitioner was not by a duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner since 1996 on selection continued to serve in the said post. As the post was reserved, the petitioner was selected and appointed every year after due advertisement, continuously, till his termination on 31.07.2003 on account of being rendered surplus. The post was reserved for S.C.candidate.

3. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 to fill in the post which was reserved for SC candidate, advertised the same on 7th of June, 1996, 30th of May, 1997, 02nd September, 1998, 28th May, 1999, 24th March, 2000 as also on 22nd November, 2001. There was no advertisement in the year 2002-2003 as apparently the post was declared surplus and the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 1st of May, 2002. The post was again re-advertised on 31.07.2003, wherein it was shown as interchangeable between SC/ST. No SC/ST candidates applied. The post was again advertised as interchangeable on 16.06.2004 for the academic year 2004-2005. Pursuant to that advertisement a candidate belonging to S.C. category applied. The respondent no.5, as a reserved candidate and eligible was selected.

4. The petitioner in the course of his employment, on 19th April, 2002 was issued a letter, terminating his services from 1st of May, 2002. The petitioner, filed a writ petition, being writ petition no. 1935/2002 before this court for various reliefs. The respondent no.1 filed an affidavit, stating that the petitioner could not be continued in the academic year 2002-2003 because the Joint Director of Education had not given a "no objection" for filling up the post. In the same petition, affidavit-in-reply was filed by the University stating that unless papers, concerning de-reservation are submitted to them, they were not in a position to proceed ahead with the dereservation. In the light of the affidavit, the petitioner withdrew the petition to approach the college tribunal against the order of termination. The petitioner accordingly, filed an appeal being appeal no. 99/2002. The said appeal came to be decided by the judgment dated 13th of February, 2003. The Tribunal ordered that the termination of services of the petitioner be set aside and the petitioner was directed to be taken back. The State Government was directed to pay the wages of the petitioner. The petitioner, accordingly, was taken back in service.

5. A proposal for dereservation dated 20th of March, 2003 was submitted to the university and the petitioner was accordingly informed by letter dated 21st of April, 2003. Subsequent to the proposal forwarded for de-reservation, two further advertisements were issued on 31st of July, 2003 and 13th June, 2004 for appointment to the post, showing the post as interchangeable.

6. According to the petitioner, once the college had submitted the proposal for de-reservation, there was no reason for the college to advertise the said post once again. In terms of the G.R. of 5th December, 1994, once the post is advertised on six occasions and a reserved category candidate was not available, the said post becomes ripe for dereservation. As the petitioner apprehended that his service would be terminated, petitioner filed writ petition no. 2248 of 2005 before this court. An order came to be passed, restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner. The said petition was finally disposed of on 15th December, 2006, directing the University to forward the proposal for de-reservation to the State Government. The State Government in turn was to take necessary decision. Petitioner received a communication dated 09th of October, 2007 from the college, informing that the State Government had