GARG, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them identical questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2006/2003
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2. 5. 2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 25. 4. 2003 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur by which the services of the petitioner were not extended after 31. 3. 2002 and the impugned show cause notice dated 31. 1. 2003 (Annex. 6) issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur be quashed and a set aside and the respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner on the regular vacant post of Assistant Professor. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner after doing the LL. M. in the year 1977 was appointed as Assistant Professor at College of Law in Udaipur University, later on, termed as Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur, on adhoc basis and worked upto 31. 5. 1983 and, thereafter, his services were discontinued. The further case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 23. 2. 1984, he was again appointed on the post of Legal Assistant in the employment of the respondents on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/- per month. The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1988, he proceeded on leave for doing Ph. D. work at New Delhi and his leave was sanctioned upto 13. 11. 1988, but thereafter, his services were terminated vide order dated 3. 3. 1990 treating him absent from duties with effect from 14. 11. 1988. The further case of the petitioner is that after completion of Ph. D. work, he returned to Udaipur in the month of January, 1991 and the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Legal Associate vide order dated 8. 2. 1991 (Annex. 1), which reads as follows:- " The Vice-Chancellor is pleased to appoint Shri Y. S. Sharma as Legal Associate, College of Law, Udaipur as stop-gap- arrangement upto 31. 3. 1991 or till a selected candidate joins on the post of Associate Professor, whichever is earlier on a fixed amount of Rs. 2070/- p. m. with effect from the date he joins his duties in pursuance of this order. " The further case of the petitioner is that since 8. 2. 1991, he is continuously working as Legal Associate in the employment of the respondents and his services were extended from time to time and lastly, the services of the present petitioner as well as petitioner Dr. D. K. Jain of Writ Petition No. 1984/2003 were extended upto 31. 3. 2003 through order Annex. 2 dated 13/17. 1. 2003. The further case of the petitioner is that he filed a writ petition No. 563/1989 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of seeking relief for equal pay for equal work and for creation of post etc. etc. and that writ petition was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through judgment dated 16. 9. 1992, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 3 and the last para of that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted here:- " Before we part we must mention that counsel for the petitioners had urged that even though the petitioners have put in long years as Research Associates they are still treated as ad hoc employees with no security of tenure. 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. " The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 27/28. 12. 1999 (Annex. 4) and allowed UGC pay scale to the petitioner. However, in respect of fixation of pay, a show cause notice Annex. 6 dated 31. 1. 2003 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur. A reply to the said show cause notice Annex. 6 was filed by the petitioner through Annex. 7 on 4. 3. 2003. The further case of the petitioner is that though his services were extended upto 31. 3. 2003 through order Annex. 2, but through impugned order Annex. 8 dated 25. 4. 2003, the services of the petitioner were not extended beyond 31. 3. 2003 meaning thereby the services of the petitioner came to an end on 31. 3. 2003 and that order Annex. 8 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis and his services were not extended after 31. 3. 2003, therefore, he had no case and the order dated 25. 4. 2003 (Annex. 8) by which the services of the petitioner were not extended beyond 31. 3. 2003 was served on the petitioner on 29. 4. 2003 through Annex. R/4 and the petitioner was relieved from the post of Legal Associate on 30. 4. 2003 and since then, he was not in service. It was further submitted by the respondents that no doubt the adhoc services of the petitioner were extended from time to time, but his services were never regularised as Legal Associate nor he was ever appointed as Legal Associate in a regular manner for the obvious reason that there was no sanctioned post of Legal Associate in the budget of the University. Thus, the petitioner had no right to hold the post of Legal Associate after 31. 3. 2003. It was further submitted by the respondents that the services of the petitioner were not extended after 31. 3. 2003 as per the Resolution No. 23 passed by the Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on 21. 4. 2003 and a copy of the said Resolution is marked as Annex. R/7. It was further submitted by the respondents that the said Resolution No. 23 (Annex. R/7) was passed keeping in view the fact that the Rajasthan Universities Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Amendment Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "amendment Act of 2003") was passed on 5. 4. 2003 and the existing sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974) under which the adhoc appointment of the petitioner was made, deleted by the Amendment Act of 2003. A copy of the said Amendment Act of 2003 by which sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 was deleted is marked as Annex. R/8. For convenience, sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 is quoted here:- " 3. Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers.- (1 ). . . . . . 2. . . . . . (3) Nothing therein contained shall apply to the appointment of a teacher or an officer as a stop-gap arrangement for a period not exceeding one year or to the appointment of a part time teacher or of a teacher or officer in the pay scale lower than that of Lecturer or Assistant Registrar respectively. " It was further submitted by the respondents that since sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974, under which the adhoc appointment of the petitioner was made, has been deleted through Amendment Act of 2003 (Annex. R/8), therefore, the respondents could not extend the adhoc services of the petitioner as Legal Associate and that is why, his services were not extended after 31. 3. 2003 through order Annex. 8 dated 25. 4. 2003. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was appointed before 1991 in the employment of the respondents, but this Court is not concerned for earlier appointments, but through order Annex. 1 dated 8. 2. 1991, the petitioner was appointed as Legal Associate on a fixed amount of Rs. 2070/- per month and his services were extended from time to time and lastly his services were extended upto 31. 3. 2003 through Annex. 2 meaning thereby he remained in the employment of the respondents for more than 11 years. The other aspect of the case is that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court through judgment Annex. 3 has clearly observed that though the petitioner had put in long years as Research Associate in the employment of the respondents, still he was treated as adhoc employee with no security of tenure and, therefore, the respondents were directed to prepare a scheme whereunder such Research Associates could be absorbed in the regular cadre of Research Assistants as and when vacancies arise.
(3.) IN my considered opinion, by passing the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 25. 4. 2003, the respondents have clearly violated the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through judgment Annex. 3. This is another aspect of the matter. The question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 25. 4. 2003 by which the services of the petitioner were not extended beyond 31. 3. 2003 can be justified or not. Before deciding this question, it may be stated here that this Court is aware that the Educational Authorities should be left without interference from the Court and other outside agencies in administering their disciplinary jurisdiction over the matters of examinations and appointments. ;