1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent-University that there was a settlement between the appellant and the University before the Labour-cum-Reconciliation Officer, Hissar on October 13, 1993 in which the University had agreed to post the appellant as a Clerk. It is also not disputed that the appellant had been working on the post of Clerk all along.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University that since the appellant did not possess a first division in matric and did not (sic) know typing, he was not regularised. It may be noted that these qualifications were prescribed by the Vice-Chancellor on February 3, 1993. The settlement before the Labour-cum-Reconciliation Officer had taken place on October 19, 1993 after the above qualifications were prescribed. Having agreed before the Conciliation Officer that the appellant will be appointed as a Clerk in the University, it cannot wriggle out of the settlement and refuse regularization of the appellant on the ground that he is not a matric first division. So far as other qualification is concerned, the appellant has already completed his Stenography in Hindi and holds the National Trade Certificate issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour (National Council for Training in Vocational Trades). That being so, the appellant is clearly entitled to be regularised on the post of Clerk.
4. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated August 5, 1997 is set aside with the direction that the University will regularise the appellant on the post of Clerk, within 6 weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is communicated to it, particularly as it is not disputed that the post of Clerk in the regular cadre is available.