- (1.) D. K. Seth, J The petitioner, an As sistant Professor in the Department of Farm and Machinery and Power Engineering Col lege of Technology in the G. B. Pant Univer sity of Agriculture and Technology was placed at SI. No. 2 in the Penal of selected candidate for the post of Senior Research Officer by the Selection Committee con stituted under Chapter XIII, Rule 4 (d) of the University Statutes. Sri M. P. Singh who was selected as SI. No. 1 having been offered appointment had joined the post. Against the lien vacancy of Dr. T. N. Misra, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment in the post of Senior Research Officer by a letter dated 31st January, 1987 (Annexure-1 ). The said ad-hoc appointment was ex tended from time to time by letters dated 7th August, 1987,28th December, 1987 and 29th/30th August, 1988 (Annexures '2', '3' and '4' ). The appointment of Dr. T. N. Misra on adhoc basis in the post of Senior Agricul ture Engineer Bio-gas having been regularised with effect from 28th Decem ber, 1987, a regular vacancy in the post of Senior Research Officer, the post held by Dr. T. N. Misra, had occurred. The petitioner claims regularisation of his ad hoc appoint ment in the post of Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987. The petitioner further claimed that the petitioner was still working as Senior Re search Officer even after December 1988. It is alleged that by letter dated 28th July, 1989 (Annexure-6) the petitioner was informed that the management decided not to extend the petitioners appointment as Senior Re search Officer. The post is still vacant and no selection had been made. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment should be regularised on the post of Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987. Therefore, he had prayed for a man damus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's appointment as Senior Research Officer with effect from 28th December, 1987 and to continue the petitioner's service as Senior Research Of ficer and pay all salaries and allowances accordingly.
(2.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the University, it has been contended that the petitioner was allowed senior scale of pay in the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 1st January, 1986 on account of this qualifying the criteria for senior scale. That one post of Senior Research Officer, having fallen vacant, was advertised for selection to be made by the Selection Committee both statute under the Statute. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of four candidates according to merit. The petitioner name figured in SI. No. 2 in the said panel; The Committee had recommended the ap pointment of the petitioner at SI. No. 2 in the event of the person recommended at SI. No. 1 does not join. The candidate in SI. No. 1 having joined, the panel stood lapsed. Dr. T. N. Misra was given ad hoc appointment in lien vacancy of Dr. R. N. Singh. The petitioner was given appointment in the resultant lien vacancy of Dr. T. N. Misra for a period of six months on ad hoc basis accord ing to the terms and condition contained in the said letter of appointment stipulating that the petitioner would be reverted to the post of Assistant Professor as soon Sri T. N. Misra is reverted to the post of Senior Re search Officer. Clause 6 of the appointment letter clearly lays down that for regular ap pointment, the petitioner would have to ap pear in the interview for selection. It is the Board of Management which give the ap pointment. IN the present case, the appoint ment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis and its extension were approved by the Board of Management. According to the University, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor since after the ad hoc appoint ment came to an end by reason of non-ex tension and he had been discharging his duty in his substantive post of Assistant Professor since after 27th December, 1988 after which the said ad hoc appointment was never extended. No appointment can be made contrary to the regulations provided under Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the University which contemplates filing up of posts on regular basis only after due adver tisement in National Daily and after the candidate has been found suitable and recommended by the Selection Committee constituted therefor. Therefore, according to the University, the petitioner has no claim. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated his case on the same facts that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised and that the decision of the Board of Management did not contain any reason and, therefore, its action was ar bitrary. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after summarising the facts, advanced three fold submissions. He contends that the petitioner having been selected and given appointment on ad hoc basis which was extended continuously for some time, it was 'incumbent upon the University Authority to regularise his ap pointment on account of his eligibility be cause of the reason of his placement at SI. No. 2 in the panel. Alternatively, according to him, the petitioner having been selected for the post and placed at SI. No. 2 in the ad hoc appointment is to be made from the panel itself being the next in position until a regularly selected candidate joins. Lastly he contends that since no regular selection has been made, he is entitled to continue in the post of Senior Research Officer till a regular selection is made.
(3.) MR. Kacker, learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's service could not be regularised. Inasmuch as according to him, there is no scope for regularisation of ad hoc appointment in the post which can only be filled up through selection as provided in Chapterxiii of the Statute. The selection of the petitioner having been made in respect of only one vacancy which was advertised and the candidate in SI. No. 1 above the petitioner having been appointed, the panel had lost its force because the petitioner had been recommended for appointment only in the event the candidate in SI. No. 1 does not join. The appointment of the petitioner clearly stipulated that the same was ad hoc for a period of six months. Under the Statutes, no ad hoc appointment could ex tend beyond six months and that the ques tion of regularisation having been made subject to interview even in the letter of adhoc appointment which the petitioner had accepted, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation. He contends further that since afrer'27th December, 1988, the petitioner-is not discharging the function of Senior Research Officer, therefore, he can not claim any benefit of continuous service or otherwise. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, con tends, relying on the decision in the case of Hemanshit Kumar Chaturvedi v. University of Gorakhpur through its Registrar and others, 1993 (2) SCC 49 that the petitioner having been appointed in a lien vacancy which resulted into a regular vacancy on 23rd December, 1987, the petitioner is en titled to regularisation because of his con tinuation on account of ad hoc appointment purrsuant to the petitioner's placement at SI. o. 2 in the list of selected candidates ac cording to Chapter XIII of the Statutes. According to him, alternatively, even if the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation, he is entitled to continue his ad hoc appoint ment until the post is regularly filled. Rely ing on the judgment in the case of Kar-nataka State Private College Stop-gap Lec turers Association v. State of Kamataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 677, Mr. Khare con tends that on the guidelines as laid down in the form of direction by the Supreme Court, the petitioner's temporary appointment should be continued till the purpose for which he has been appointed exhausts or if it is in waiting of regular selection, then till such selection is made. Any delay in filling up the vacancy would not entitled the Management to terminate the petitioner's ad hoc appointment except for adequate reasons. The contends further that the prin ciple laid down in the case of Kamataka State Private College Stop-gap-Lecturers As sociation (supra) has been re-affirmed in the case of Basemddin M. Madari v. State of Kamataka and others, 1995 (Supp) SCC 111.;