SINGH, CJ. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 27. 5. 2003 rendered in CW 2006/2003 whereby the writ petition of the first respondent was allowed and the order dated 25. 4. 2003 passed by the second appellant, Mohan Lal University, Udaipur was quashed and both the appellants Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, were directed to take back the first respondent in service as Legal Assistant with all consequential benefits. The appellants were also directed to absorb the first respondent on a regular post from the date when the vacancy arose pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16. 9. 1992. By the impugned order the learned single judge also quashed the notice-dated 31. 1. 2003.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is as follows:- The first respondent acquired LL. M. Degree in the year 1977. The Udaipur University, re-christened as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor. The post also entitled the first respondent to regular annual grade increments, which were consequently given during the course of his service in his capacity as Assistant Professor. Later, in the year 1983 the first respondent was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. The first respondent, however, was not selected and as a result whereof, his services were not continued after 31. 5. 1983. Thus, the first respondent worked as Assistant Professor from 14. 11. 1977 until 31. 5. 1983 in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the College of Law, Udaipur University. After a gap of about nine months, the first respondent was again appointed in the appellant University on 23. 2. 1984 against the post of Legal Assistant but the appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. Subsequently, the post of Legal Assistant was re-designated as Legal Associate by the order of the University dated 19. 9. 1987. As Legal Assistant/legal Associate, the first respondent was paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1, 200/- per month. By the order dated 19. 6. 1987 the consolidated salary of the first respondent was enhanced to Rs. 1,620/- per month. On 3. 3. 1990, the University terminated the services of the first respondent with effect from 14. 11. 1988 on account of the absence of the first respondent from duty. The absence of the first respondent was occasioned by the fact of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph. D. work at University of Delhi. After the first respondent acquired the Ph. D. Degree, he was again appointed by the appellant University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8. 2. 1990 on fixed salary of Rs. 2,070/- per month as stop-gap arrangement until 31. 3. 1991 or till the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal Associate, whichever was earlier. The appointment of the first respondent as Legal Associate was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him until 31. 3. 2003 After 31. 3. 2003 his services were not extended, with the result that he ceased to be an employee of the University. In this regard the Registrar of the appellant University by its letter dated 25. 4. 2003 informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment of the first respondent as Legal Associate has not been extended beyond 31. 3. 2003. In order to complete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer to a development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of writ petitions before the Supreme Court by Research Assistants/ Associates on account of refusal of the appellant University to grant to them the scale of Rs. 700-1600 recommended by the University Grants Commission with effect from 1. 1. 1973. Even though the appellant University had implemented the UGC recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of members of teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the Research Assistants/associates.
(3.) THE appellant was also one of the writ petitioners before the Supreme Court. In that batch of writ petitions the Supreme Court rejected the demand of the petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs. 700-Rs. 1600/ -. THE Supreme Court, however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700/- per month, which was the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600. THE Supreme Court also allowed monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700/- per month. THE Supreme Court clarified that the appointments will continue to be what they were and the incumbents will not belong to the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their consolidated salary is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the timescale allowed to a Research Assistant. It was further clarified that they will not be equated with Lecturers/assistant Professors. THEy were to continue on the same duties, which they were carrying out including assisting Assistant Professors. THE benefit of the revised consolidated salary was made available to them from the date of their appointment as Research Associates On behalf of the petitioners it was urged before the Supreme Court that even though they had put in long years as Research Associates they were still treated as ad hoc employees with no security of service. THE Supreme Court, keeping in view the plea of the petitioners, observed as follows:- " We would leave it to the authorities to consider the feasibility of preparing a scheme whereunder such Research Associates can be absorbed in the regular cadre of Research Assistants as and when vacancies arise. Since the educational requirements, process of selection and job-charts are almost identical such a scheme can be of mutual benefit to the employees as well as the University, the employees getting security of tenure and University getting experienced hands. We would expect the University to examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date. " Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the appellant University it its order dated 27. 12. 1999 placed the first respondent in the scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. The order reads as under:- " MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY: UDAIPUr No. F. 196/estt/gr. I/mlsu/99/10609-18 Dt. 27/28. 12. 99. ORDEr On the recommendation of a Committee constituted by the Board of Management vide its resolution No. 2 (i) dated 27. 10. 99, the Vice- Chancellor is pleased to allow the UGC Pay Scales of Rs. 2200-75- 2800-100-4000 to Dr. Y. S. Sharma, Legal Associate. His salary will be charged against the post of Assistant Professor at the College of Law w. e. f. 9. 2. 91 with the following conditions:- 1. That his past services prior to 9. 2. 91 shall not be counted. 2. He will be treated in a scale equivalent to Assistant Professor for the purpose of scale only not for designation. 3. Benefit of the notional increments shall be allowed as per other ad hoc teachers. 4. His appointment will be on ad hoc basis and he will not claim for placement of his appointment as Assistant Professor in permanent capacity. 5. He will be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 8000- 275-13500 w. e. f. 1. 1. 96 and payment of difference be made to him as admissible along with other allowances which is admissible to other ad hoc teachers. 6. This offer is purely temporary/stop-gap arrangement basis or till regular appointment is made in the same manner in case of other ad hoc teachers. 7. He will enter in an agreement through an undertaking on a stamp worth Rs. 10/- signed by sureties p& witness in writing as agreed by him. Sd/- REGISTRAr 27. 12. 99" In consonance with the requirement of the order-dated 27. 12. 1999, the first respondent furnished an undertaking. The undertaking reads as follows: " UNDERTAKINg I, Dr. Y. S. Sharma, S/o. Shri Laxman Sharma, Legal Associate, aged 54, resident of Udaipur, undertake follows :- 1. That the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 is acceptable to me w. e. f. 9. 2. 91 as allowed to me in compliance to the recommendations of the committee constituted vide its resolution No. 2 (1) dated 27. 10. 99 of the M. L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, conveyed to me under order No. F-196/estt/gr-I/mlsu/99/10609-18 dtd. 27-28/12/99. 2. That I accept this scale which is equivalent to Asstt. Professor for the purposes of pay scale only. 3. That the benefit of notional increment shall be claimed by me as allowed to other ad hoc teachers in the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 w. e. f. 9/2/91. 4. That my appointment shall be on ad hoc basis and I shall not claim for placement as Asstt. Professor in permanent capacity. 5. That I accept revised pay scale of 8000-275-13500 w. e. f. 1. 1. 96. That the payment of difference shall however be made to me from 1. 1. 96. 6. That I accept the post as temporary/stop-gap arrangement basis till regular appointment is made in the same manner as in the case of other ad hoc features (Asstt. Professor ). Sd/- Y. S. Sharma 28. 12. 99. " ;