Absorption cannot be annulled for lack of prior concurrence if subsequently sought and granted for similarly situated employees.

The petitioner, originally an employee of Optel Telecommunications Limited (a State-controlled entity), was sent on deputation to Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (RGPV) as a System Analyst-cum-Programmer.

His services were absorbed by RGPV on 27.06.2003.

Subsequently, RGPV issued a show-cause notice and passed an impugned order dated 25.11.2005 annulling the absorption on grounds that: (i) there was no prior State Government concurrence; (ii) the petitioner lacked requisite qualifications; and (iii) he was absorbed into a Class-I post with a higher pay scale despite being a Class-II employee.

The petitioner challenged this annulment, noting that 11 other similarly situated employees had their absorptions regularized through subsequent concurrence.

By virtue of an interim order dated 05.12.2005, the petitioner continued in service until his superannuation.

1. Whether the annulment of the petitioner’s absorption was legally sustainable given that the matter of concurrence was still pending with the State Government.

2. Whether the petitioner was discriminated against in comparison to 11 other employees whose absorptions were validated via post-facto concurrence.

The court examined Section 11(4) of the Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998, which vests certain powers in the Governor.

The court also relied on the principle of administrative consistency and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, implying that similarly situated employees must be treated equally regarding the regularization of absorption through state concurrence.

The Court found that RGPV had formally recommended the petitioner’s absorption and sought State Government concurrence via communication dated 30.06.2005.

This communication explicitly stated that the petitioner possessed the required qualifications and was entitled to the Class-I pay scale (10,000–15,200) based on his seniority and pending increments at Optel.

The Court observed that while the State Government had eventually granted concurrence for 11 other employees in the same batch, the respondents abruptly annulled the petitioner's absorption without waiting for a final decision from the State.

Since the University’s own correspondence (Annexure P/22) supported the petitioner’s eligibility and the respondents failed to rebut these facts with a counter-affidavit, the Court determined that the summary annulment—while the approval process was ongoing—was arbitrary and unsustainable.

The Court quashed the order dated 25.11.2005.

Since the petitioner had already superannuated during the pendency of the litigation, the Court directed the respondents to calculate and extend all consequential service benefits to the petitioner within 90 days.

The writ petition was allowed.