SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY a common order dated 2. 1. 1992 (Annex. 1), 4 persons including the present petitioner were appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the subject mentioned against their names purely on ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement in a starting pay of Rs. 2200/- P. M. in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances at the College of Social Sciences & Humanities, Udaipur for a period upto 6. 5. 1992 or till a duly selected candidate joins or till further orders, whichever is earlier, with effect from the date they joint their duty in pursuance of this order.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Rajasthan College. THEreafter, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time till 25. 6. 98. By an order dated 25/26. 6. 98 (Annex. 6), the respondent University appointed other persons as Assistant Professor on a starting pay being drawn by them during the academic session 1996-97 in the same pay scale with effect from 30. 6. 98 for a period upto the last working day of the academic session 1998-99 or till regularly selected candidate joins or till further orders, whichever is earlier, purely as stop-gap arrangement on ad-hoc basis. However, the services of the petitioner were not extended. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel Mr. Bora vehemently submitted that the petitioner continuously served with the respondent University from 2. 1. 92 till 25. 6. 98, therefore, there was no reason for the respondent University not to extend his services when it extended the services of others. He submitted that his services were not extended only because the petitioner has challenged the enquiry initiated against him for forging medical reimbursement bills of Rs. 149. 50p. He submitted that when the petitioner has continued in service from 1992 to 1998 for a period of almost six years, then it was legitimately expected from the respondents to continue him in service, particularly, when the services of others were continued. In substance his submission was that the doctrine of legitimate expectancy would apply in his case. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 19. 4. 96 delivered in Dr. Irfan Mehar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1), and other allied matters. From the order of initial appointment (Annex. 1), it is clear that (1) the appointment of the petitioner was stop-gap and purely on ad hoc basis and (2) for a fixed period upto 6. 5. 92 or till a duly selected candidate joins whichever is earlier. At the end of every academic session, the services of the petitioner was extended from time to time along with the services of others. The last appointment of the petitioner was upto 25. 6. 98. It may be that because forged medical reimbursement bills of Rs. 149. 50, the services of the petitioner might have not been extended or for any other reason. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment of Dr. Irfan Mehar (supra) has held that if the persons are allowed to be continued for more than two academic sessions, then it would create a right to them of reasonable expectancy that he will continue in the employment of the University till regularly selected candidate was made available. However, with greatest respect to the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court, their Lordships have not considered the Supreme Court judgments on this point.
(3.) IN case of State of Punjab vs. Surinder Singh (2), the Apex Court has made it very clear that unless and until the employee's services are being governed by the statutory rules, his services may be on ad hoc or temporary basis and his services would be governed by the terms of appointment letter. IN case of Director of INstitutions, Lucknow vs. Pushpa Srivastava (3) and State of U. P. vs. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha (4), the Apex Court has held that person appointed on such terms cannot be allowed to claim any right to hold the post. It may be stated that here it is not a case of termination of service but it is a case of non-extension of service. If according to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the appointment was for a fixed period, then doctrine of pleasure would apply and if the respondent University was of the opinion, for any reason, that his services were not required to be extended, then this Court cannot sit in appeal and decide the same in its writ jurisdiction. Merely because the services of some other Professors were extended by order at Annex. 6, it would not give any right to the petitioner to claim that his services should have also been extended. When there are already conditions mentioned in the appointment letter, then one cannot insist that one condition may be followed and other may not be followed. This is up to the University to decide as to whether his services may be extended or not even though a regularly selected candidate was made available or not. ;