The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review against administrative decisions and the need for fair consideration of all materials and submissions by the competent authorities.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to notice issued by the second respondent bearing Reference No.C1-10/21851/2018 dated 13.8.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to continuously pay the salary as being paid as on date with VII Pay Commission benefits from the due date.)

1. The show cause notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings dated 13.8.2018, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she was working as Special Officer Grade-I under the second respondent-University. The writ petitioner was appointed on 22.4.2005 as Special Officer and her service was confirmed on 19.5.2007. After taking over the University by the Government, now the respondents issued show cause notice stating that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was made without the availability of any sanctioned post and without any assessment of workload and without any recommendations of the Finance Committee and the Resolutions of the University Syndicate.

3. In the process of regulating the administration, various steps are taken by the competent authorities of the University. Inspections are conducted, Audits and other verification of records were done and certain actions, which all are necessitated in order to regulate the administration were taken by the Government. The writ petitioner, who is a non teaching staff, working in the cadres of Special officer Grade-I has been issued with the impugned show cause notice, broadly stating that the said official namely Special Officer Grade-I on the rolls of the University remaining as surplus in terms of the workload available; and causing a huge financial loss to a tune about Rs.60 Crores per annum. The continuance of these 785 surplus officers in employment without no work but with full pay almost cripples the financial situation causing huge deficit every year and posing imminent threat to the very existence of the University. It is noticed that the initial appointment as well as the confirmation orders seems to have been issued pursuant to the orders of the Vice-Chancellor without the availability of any sanctioned post and without making any assessment of the prevailing workload and without any recommendation of the Finance Committee and without any resolution of the University Syndicate.

4. It is further stated in the impugned show cause notice that with the intent of striking a balance between the deteriorating financial position of the University and to avoid retrenchment of these surplus officers, who have no work in the University, has been exploring the possibility of accommodating these surplus officers against some other cadre for the time being namely, Assistant Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+ GP 4600. The steps are taken in order to maintain the financial stability of the University.

5. In this regard, the second respondent has issued the impugned show cause notices in order to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioner and accordingly, the writ petitioner is directed to submit her explanations/objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the impugned show cause notice.

6. The writ petitioner had already submitted her explanations/objections to the impugned show cause notice pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission, mainly contending that pay protection has already been extended in the Statute itself. This apart, the Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.402, Higher Education Department dated 13.12.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 28.04.2017, stating that even in the case of deputation of the staff on account of the non-availability of the sanctioned post, the pay protection must be g