The main legal point established is that a tribunal cannot restrain a recruitment process when the challengers did not participate in the process and the selected candidates were granted appointments.

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. In this group of petitions, the Sardar Patel University has preferred Special Civil Applications Nos. 3799 of 2011 to 3801 of 2011 and 3803 of 2011 to 3813 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common interim order passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) dated 17.03.2011, in Applications Nos. 12 of 2011 to 25 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has restrained the petitioner University from proceeding with the recruitment process for different non-teaching posts such as, Junior Laboratory Assistant, Hamal, Peon and Junior Clerk-cum-Typist. The Tribunal has further restrained the University from dispensing with the services of the first respondents (“the daily-wagers”) in the said petitions, who were working on daily-wage basis on such posts.

2. Special Civil Applications Nos. 6047 of 2011 to 6053 of 2011 have been preferred by those persons who have been selected in the process of recruitment and have, during the pendency of the present petitions, been granted appointments and are serving on different posts. The challenge in these petitions also is to the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Tribunal.

3. The brief factual background in which the petitions have been filed, is as follows:

4. The petitioner University is constituted under the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (“the Act” for short). It receives grant from the State Government under Section 23(4) of the Act. The University received a communication dated 23.08.2010 from the State Government informing it that for the purpose of initiating the process of recruitment in respect of certain unfilled posts in the reserved category, no prior permission was required to be taken from the Finance Department. An advertisement dated 07.09.2012 was issued in this regard, calling for applications from eligible candidates. In view thereof, the University initiated the process to fill up the following posts:-

5. The Written Aptitude Test was conducted on 27.02.2011 and the short-listed candidates were called for interview on 15-16.03.2011. A duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and submitted its recommendations to the University, in its meeting held on 19.03.2011 the daily-wagers approached the Tribunal by filing Applications Nos. 12 of 2011 to 25 of 2011, with two-fold prayers. The first prayer was to the effect that the action of the University in not regularising their services from the dates of their respective employments be declared as illegal and they be regularised in service from the dates of their appointments and paid regular wages. The second prayer was an interim one, praying for a restraint order against the University from making any appointments to the posts of Junior Clerk/Peon, pursuant to the advertisement and from terminating their services. It is significant to note that in the applications filed by the daily-wagers, they did not challenge the process of recruitment. Neither did they participate in the said process, but preferred to pursue the applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 17.03.2011, restraining the University from terminating the services of the daily-wagers and from filling up the advertised posts from the candidates selected on the basis of the regular selection process. Aggrieved by the above order, the University has approached this Court by filing the above-mentioned petitions.

6. On 25.03.2011, Notice was issued in the petitions and ad-interim relief, in terms of Paragraphs-7B and 7C was granted, staying the impugned order of the Tribunal and any further