PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) There are two appeals before us today directed against the judgment and order dated May 17, 2017 passed in W.P. No. 12392(W) of 2016. One appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal. The other appeal has been filed by the authorities of the Kalyani University (hereafter the University). The respective appellants are aggrieved because the learned Single Judge set aside an earlier reasoned order dated May 17, 2016 of the Vice-Chancellor of the University and was pleased to hold that the writ petitioners shall be entitled to a fresh consideration in the additional light of the observations made in the impugned judgment on the terms as already directed by the order dated March 14, 2016, in an earlier writ petition, being W.P. No. 1577(W) of 2016. The said order, for fresh consideration, was made time bound. 2. The reason why the appeals have come up before this Court are, in fact, to be found from the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were working as employees at a 'mess' maintained and administered by the University. It is not disputed that they were temporary employees and not part of the regular establishment of the University. In some earlier litigation, which is reflected from the writ petition, some persons alleged to be similarly situated to the writ petitioners approached the High Court and obtained an order by virtue of which their services were regularized in the establishment of the University. On an allegation that there were several vacancies of a substantive nature in the said 'mess' of the University, the present writ petitioners applied before the appellants for a similar relief but their application for such consideration resulted in no useful purpose. Accordingly, the present writ petitioners moved this Court by and under W.P. No. 1577(W) of 2016. In such writ petition, by order dated March 14, 2016, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct consideration of the representation made by the writ petitioners and to take a decision thereon in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunities of being heard to all concerned in a time bound manner. When on the basis of this order, the Vice-Chancellor/respondent no. 2, in that writ petition, held a fresh hearing into the grievances disclosed by the writ petitioners in their representation, for the first time, according to the writ petitioners, a Government Order was disclosed by the authorities of the University. This Government Order was dated October 28, 2014 and bore following number. "No. 874-Edn (CS)/1C-63L/12". 3. The subject of the memorandum, which amounts to a Government Order within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, reads as follows:- "Conferment of the status of non-teaching Hostel/Mess employees and the benefit of General Provident Fund and Pension to the Hostel/Mess employees of State-aided Universities, Government aided Colleges including Government General Degree Colleges and Government Engineering and Technology Colleges in West Bengal." 4. In reality, apart from the provisions made in the first three pages all of which are beneficial in nature and seek to confer equality of treatment to hostel/mess employees as are given to non-teaching employees of the respective institutions covered by the said Government Order and treats them as non-teaching employees of such institutions for the purposes mentioned therein, one provision was made which, according to the learned advocate for the writ petitioners, strikes a jarring note. 5. The provision, to which we refer, is as follows:- "8. All existing posts of Hostel/Mess employees in all State-aided Universities, Government-aided Colleges and Government Colleges shall be considered to be a 'dying cadre' and all such post shall be treated as personal to the present incumbent. No further recruitment, either contractual or permanent, including appointment or compassionate ground shall be allowed in such post with effect from the date of issue of this Order. The Hostel and Messes of all such Universities and Colleges shall be maintained by outsourcing through private entrepreneurs for which the State Government may grant annual ad-hoc grants. The detailed procedure in this regard will be laid down in due course." 6. Admittedly, however, this Government Order was never challenged by the writ petitioners. 7. Another provision at Clause 11 of the Government Order which is required to be considered is as follows:- "11. Any dispute in relation to interpretation or clarification of this Memorandum referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government final." 8. The University relied upon this Government Order dated October 28, 2014 to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioners by a reasoned order dated May 17, 2016 on the following terms:- "In respectful compliance of the judgement and order dated March 14, 2016 passed by the Hón'ble Justice Mr. Debangsu Basak in Writ Petition Vide No. 1577 (W) of 2016, Ranjit Sarkar and Ors. v. University of Kalyani and Ors. , the following Reasoned Order is being passed in the light of Memo vide No. 874-Edn(CS)/IC-63L/12 dated 28th October, 2014 issued by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal: The writ petitioner along with another two co-petitioners or their authorized representative are called for hearing on 22nd April, 2016 vide Registrar of the University's letter No. 521/KU/CC/16/S-232 dated 12.04.2016. Accordingly, the writ petitioner Sri Ranjit Sarkar, another co-petitioner Sri Gopal Das and one authorized representative Sri Sasanka Shekhar Bal of Co-petitioner Sri Gobinda Majumdar, were appeared before the hearing at 12.00 noon on 22nd April, 2016. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 1577(W) of 2016 had prayed for permanent position in the University. In support of their statement, they cited the Reasoned Order passed by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal on 10th July, 2013 in W.P. No. 9320(W) of 2001, Madhusudan Swar and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Where the service of 12 number of Mess Employees were regularized against the vacant post sanctioned from the end of the State Government. The petitioners also prayed that they have been serving the University since long and in accordance with law they may be absorbed against the existing vacancies of the Mess employees in University of Kalyani. In support of their statement, one of the petitioner's authorized representative showed the letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University which was annexed as P-9 of the writ petition. In view of the above and after issuance of the State Government Memo dated 28th October, 2014, the undersigned believed that the University is in a position to regularize the service of temporary Hostel/Mess Employees against any sanctioned vacant post(s). The matter is thus disposed of." 9. In the judgment impugned before us, the learned Single Judge has made certain observations on the basis of which the above reasoned order was set aside. These observations have, it appears, aggrieved the appellants before us. 10. However, from the reasoned order dated May 17, 2016 itself it is clear that the University had expressed its helplessness to decide the matter in view of the above Government Order dated October 28, 2014 and had frankly confessed that this could only be decided by the State of West Bengal, the appellant in the other appeal. As such, it does appear that the Vice-Chancellor ought to have taken a decision whether to regularize the services of the writ petitioners against any already sanctioned post. That decision would involve interpretation of the words 'dying cadre' and the intention of the State of West Bengal behind such provision, in the light of the facts and circumstances which have been pointed out to us by the learned advocates appearing in both sets of appeals. Once it is held that the entire question in the writ petition involved an interpretation of what the Government of West Bengal intended by that provision in the Government Order dated October 28, 2014 relating to 'dying cadre' ought to mean, what meaning was to be given to it became a dispute in relation to the interpretation or clarification of that Government Order in general and 'dying cadre' in particular. According to the Government Order, this had to be referred to the State whose decision was to be final. 11. In the instant case, the writ petitioners did challenge the memorandum, but they were perhaps required to do so. If the writ petitioners sought to rely upon the Government Order, they could at the same time have challenged it. They wanted an interpretation, as aforesaid. This could have been provided by the Vice-Chancellor in terms of the Government Order, which was disclosed as a part of the reasoned order challenged before the Single Judge. 12. Therefore, the proper course ought to have been to direct the State Government in the appropriate department to decide the representation made by the writ petitioners on the question of the dispute raised as to the interpretation of the words 'dying cadre' used in the said Government Order on which the claim of the writ petitioners to be regularized in respect of the vacant substantive posts, would depend. As such, the jurisdiction to interpret having been given in the first instance to the State of West Bengal by the Government Order aforesaid, perhaps it would have been better for the learned Single Judge to have made any observation as regards the merits of the claim or otherwise as agitated by the writ petitioners. 13. The appeals, which have been preferred against the impugned order, are primarily directed against the observations of the learned Single Judge. In exercise of appellate jurisdiction, we have the power merely to reverse, but also to modify the order under appeal in the interest of justice. Undoubtedly, the writ petitioners are entitled to have their representation considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The appropriate authority is yet to decide the matter agitated in the representation. Therefore, justice shall be sub-served if the appellant/State of West Bengal is directed through its appropriate authority, that is, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, to consider and dispose of the grievance expressed in the writ petition claiming regularization in the permanent establishment of the University against the substantive vacancies alleged to be existing without being influenced either by the observations contained in the impugned order or being influenced by any observations made by us herein. The authorities shall decide the matter in accordance with law after giving due opportunities of being heard to all parties concerned and keeping in mind the welfare nature of the Government Order, which is being interpreted. 14. We have decided nothing on the merits, claims and counter-claims. The authority shall be free to decide the matter in its own way in lawful exercise of discretion, with reasonable expedition. 15. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of M.A.T. 1429 of 2017. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.;