The court emphasized that Career Advancement at the 2nd respondent-university should be in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the university, and any order issued by the Government contrary to these cannot be sustained.

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.72 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 31.3.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.257 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 1.11.1994. The petitioners and the respective respondents are working as Assistant Professors as they have been recruited directly by the 2nd respondent-university. The petitioner in W.P.No.7720/1997 was appointed in and by the proceedings dated 12.1.1993 and he joined duty as Assistant Professor on 5.2.1993. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.6792 and 6793 of 1997 were also appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors and pursuant to the said appointment, they have joined the 2nd respondent-university and have been working as Assistant Professors. In these Writ Petitions, the respective respondents were also recruited directly after conducting interview and appointment orders were issued to them on the basis of the said direct recruitment either along with the petitioners or subsequent to the petitioners as the case may be. This fact is not disputed before me. By issuing the impugned Government Orders dated 1.11.1994 and 31.3.1997, the Government have given different status and higher pay to the respondents who are also working as Assistant Professors and so the petitioners have challenged the said impugned Government Orders.

2.Heard Mr.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.7720/1997, Mr.Durai Nelliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6792 and 6793 of 1997, Mr.P.S.Jayakumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent in all the writ petitions, Mr.Thirumavalavan, appearing for 2nd respondent in these writ petitions, Mrs.K.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for some other respondents and Mr.Velusami, learned counsel appearing for some other respondents.

3.It is not disputed before me that the petitioners and the respondents who are working as Assistant Professors were appointed by direct recruitment after conducting interview. According to Statute No.45 of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, the University has to fill up the vacancies through direct recruitment or by transfer from one post to another or by promotion as prescribed in the Regulations. Even with reference to the employees who are transferred from the State Government and other Universities to work in the 2nd respondent-university, they shall be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent-university. According to Statute No.46, the University is empowered to take the State, Central, Semi and Quasi-Government employees on deputation in the University service.

4.But, in the present case, the University appointed the petitioners and the respective respondents by calling for application and by way of direct recruitment. So, in the appointment orders, it is specifically stated that candidates who were appointed so are placed on probation with effect from the date of joining in the service for a period of two years within a continuous period of three years. They have to produce physical fitness certificate and they have also executed agreements in the form prescribed. It is also stated that such appointees will be governed by the Act, Statutes and Regulations of the 2nd respondent-university. The above said facts are mentioned here only to show that the 2nd respondent-university adopted one of the methods of recruitments, namely, the direct recruitment to appoint the petitioners and the respective respondents in these writ petitions.

5.While so, the Government passed the impugned orders and directed the 2nd respondent-university to take into consideration the services rendered by the respective respondents in the Animal Husbandry Department for the purpose of Career Advancement and thereby the respondents got higher status. The said benefits given under the impugned Government Orders have to be co