ORDER :

1. Order dated October 14, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged by filing the present intra-Court appeal.

2. It is a case in which respondent no.1, who was a regular employee working with U.P. Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Institute’) as a Professor, was appointed as the Director of the Indian Institute of Carpet Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘IICT’) vide order dated November 15, 2018. It was for a period of three years or on his attaining age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. Respondent no.1 accepting the terms of the appointment, joined on the post and worked till the expiry of three years. Thereafter, vide letter dated April 1, 2022, he was granted extension for a period of six months i.e. upto September 30, 2022. A writ petition was filed in this Court for quashing the advertisement dated August 19, 2022 published for selection to the post of Director, IICT; order dated July 6, 2022 vide which direction was issued for initiating process of selection of new Director of IICT, Bhadohi; order dated July 26, 2022 vide which request was made for publishing advertisement for the post of Director, IICT in the employment newspaper and for allowing respondent no.1 to continue on the post, till he attains the age of superannuation.

3. Learned Single Judge while quashing the orders dated July 6 and July 27, 2022 and also the advertisement dated August 19, 2022 declared that the respondent no.1 is entitled to work on the post of Director, IICT, till he attains the age of superannuation in terms of Rule 8.2 of the General Service Rule falling under Chapter-II of IICT Service Rules, 2016 i.e. 65 years.

4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that in pursuance of the advertisement issued, respondent no.1, working with the Institute as a Professor, applied for the post. He was selected and appointed on purely temporary basis for a period of three years or on his attaining age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. Further extension was to be considered by the Executive Committee depending upon his performance and suitability for the post. Respondent no.1 had consciously and unconditionally accepted the terms of appointment and joined. Respondent no. 1 is a well educated person and the case does not involve unequal bargaining power. Respondent no.1, having accepted the terms of appointment, continued working without raising any issue for a period of three years. As process for regular selection to the post of Director got delayed, he was granted extension for a period of six months vide letter dated April 1, 2022, which was to expire on September 30, 2022. Before expiry of aforesaid period, an advertisement was issued on August 19, 2022 for selection to the post of Director, IICT. It was at this stage that respondent no.1 filed writ petition, which was too late and barred by principles of acquiescence and estoppel. In fact, after expiry of the extension granted to respondent no.1, he had handed over charge of the post on September 30, 2022 and thereafter he had joined his parent Department i.e. U.P. Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur. At this stage, this is too late for respondent no.1 to have claimed that he should be allowed to continue as the Director of the Institute. The Institute is merely a society. The rules or instructions issued by it as such have no force of law as these are not framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of respondent no.1 being temporary, as it was specifically mentioned in the appointment letter, will not confer any right on him for treating him a Director appointed on regular basis. In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others, [(2022) 2 SCC 25].

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that as the advertisement did not mention that appointment of res