JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"a. to quash and set aside the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and consequential benefits thereto with effect from 13.11.2013;

b. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance during the pendency of this petition as interim relief to the petitioner;

c. to grant such other and further reliefs, as may be deemed to be just and proper."

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner joined the services with the respondent No.2- University as the Assistant Professor on 06.09.2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 15,000- 39,100 with grade pay of Rs. 6,000/-. The petitioner was appointed initially for a period of one year on probation and after completion of the probation period; the petitioner was confirmed in service as the Assistant Professor w.e.f. 01.09.2012. The basic salary of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 16,250/- with grade pay of Rs. 6,000/- p.m.

2.2 The respondent No.1 is a State Private University established by the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009.

2.3 It appears that by letter dated 12.08.2013 the petitioner was informed that her services were no longer required w.e.f. 13.11.2013 and accordingly, a three months' notice was given to the petitioner starting from 13.08.2013.

2.4 The petitioner therefore preferred an application before the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Service Tribunal, Ahmedabad, challenging the communication dated 12.08.2013. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.11.2013, disposed of the Application No. 44 of 2013 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy as the petitioner No. 1 is a State Private University and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the application with a liberty to file an application before an appropriate forum. The petitioner thereafter preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers.

2.5 In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed a detailed reply raising preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the petition on the ground that the respondent being private university is not amenable to invoke jurisdiction of this Court as it is not a State or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2.6 This Court by judgment and order dated 16.02.2016 rejected the petition after considering the reply filed by the respondents to the effect that the decision had to be taken to discontinue the service of the petitioner on account of administrative exigencies as explained in Para 8 of the affidavit-in-reply. It was also observed that at the relevant point of time, the respondent-University was imparting education for B.A., B.Ed. and PhD programme and there was no other department where the petitioner could have been accommodated on being surplus.

2.7 The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid oral order preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 718 of 2017. The Division Bench by order dated 05.02.2018 remanded the matter for consideration of the question raised about maintainability of the writ petition by observing as under:

"2. It is undisputed that in the above writ-petition, a specific question was raised by the respondent-University that writ petition qua the subject prayer was not maintainable and, therefore, judicial review under Article 226 was not permissible. Without adverting to the above question, in paragraph 7 learned Single Judge deemed it proper that on account of administrative exigency, which arose and explained by the University in paragraph 8 of the reply, decision was taken to discontinue the petitioner. No doubt the writ p