- (1.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that in reply to the advertisement dt. 24. 6. 1994 (Annexure-2) issued by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur i. e. respondent No. 1, petitioner applied for the post of Computer Operator under the Special Assistance Programme in the Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan and on being successful in interview, the petitioner was appointed on the said post by the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide appointment order dated 2. 9. 1994 (Annexure-1 ).
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention herein that in the advertisement dt. 24. 6. 1994 (Ann. 2), it was specifically mentioned that the post advertised is temporary in nature and is tenable till 26. 1. 1999. The petitioner joined his duties on the post of Computer Operator w. e. f. 3. 9. 1994 vide Annexure-3. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and last extension was given upto 29. 4. 1999 (Annexure-4 ). Hence, this petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has already rendered his continuous service of 5 years to the University on the said post satisfactorily and now at this stage his termination from the services of the University, he will be deprived of getting the suitable job as he has become the over age hence, he sought a suitable direction from this Court for further extension of his tenure. In the above context, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the similarly placed other Sahayak Karamcharis were also appointed initially on daily wages basis but thereafter they were appointed in the pay scale of L. D. C. and now they have been regularised on the said post by the University. Counsel further contended that the case of the petitioner is at par to that of one Shri Pawan Srivastava whose services have been regularised who had also been appointed under UGC Special Assistance Programme like the petitioner. Counsel further contended that the appointment of the petitioner was regular in all respect and the administrative sanction in this regard was given by the University and budgetary provision was made and thereafter the posts were advertised and Selection Committee was constituted. Hence, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is that his appointment was within the ambit of directives issued by the Vice-Chancellor of University and it was not open to the University to have terminated the services of the petitioner and rather his services should have been regularised notwithstanding the fact that the appointment was temporary and for a fixed duration. Counsel further contended that respondent No. 2 having strongly recommended the regularisation of the petitioner but the Vice-Chancellor of the University was not justified to extend the tenure of the petitioner after the contractual period i. e. 10. 1. 2000 and also declined to change his nature of appointment.
(3.) IN reply to show cause notice, the University challenged the maintainability of the writ petition contending inter-alia that the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual in nature under a Special Assistance Programme (SAP) and was tenable till 26. 1. 1999 which was specifically mentioned in the appointment order. Further, the Scheme which has been mentioned hereinabove was a Scheme which was wholly dependent on the grant received from UGC and all such appointments which were made in the aforesaid Scheme including that of the petitioner were also dependent on the grant received by the University and till the Scheme prevailed they received assistance from UGC. In the above context, learned counsel for the respondent University contended that UGC had given an extension of six months to the aforesaid scheme which had already expired on 10. 7. 1999 and thus, the petitioner being not the regular employee of the University but had only worked in the specific Scheme which was wholly funded by the UGC in the Department of Philosophy hence, after expiry of contractual period of the petitioner, he was not entitled to remain in the services of the respondents further more. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. ;