an unusual situation has arisen in this case because of the university's conduct. Though the appellant was appointed in contravention of Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, she continued in office during the subsistence of the writ proceedings. When the Ld. Single judge allowed respondent no. 7’s writ petition and set aside the appellant’s appointment dated 27.12.2019, the appellant approached the Division Bench and obtained a stay. After the Division Bench affirmed the Ld. Single Judge’s order and dismissed the writ appeal, she approached this court and again obtained a stay, and this order is operating till date. In other words, the appellant's appointment dated 27.12.2019 is 15continuing till date without any interruption. She has been working for almost four and a half years. On the other hand, the wrongful denial of appointment to respondent no. 7 was addressed by the Ld. Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court by setting aside the appellant's appointment, and also directing that