- (1.) THIS special appeal u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 4. 2. 93 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of this special appeal as alleged by the appellant are that the members of the appellant Organisation are appointed temporarily as lecturers in various Government Colleges of Rajasthan. It is alleged that they were appointed in different subjects by the Directorate College Education and have been continuing since 1987. The Organisation preferred a writ petition with a prayer that its members who had completed two years service and possess requisite qualification are entitled for regularisation. The learned Single Judge after considering material on record dismissed the writ petition. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the case of the appellant is covered by the judgment reported in Lecture Forum Vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). He has relied oh Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2) Dr. M. A. Haque & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (3) and Narendra Chandha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (4) and as such the learned Single Judge should have allowed the writ petition and should have granted relief as prayed by the petitioner-appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant at length and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited before us carefully. In Lecturers Forum Vs. State of Raj. (Supra) (21) temporary Lecturers working in the Rajasthan School of Arts and Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan, formed an association with the name of Lecturers' Fourm and filed a writ petition. Services of all those petitioners were terminated and order for relieving them were also passed. The grievance of the temporary Lecturers was that the policy of the Government in making their appointments on temporary basis against the permanent and regular posts available in the colleges was violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after considering the case of State of Haryana Vs. Piava Singh (15) wherein it was laid down that an ad-hoc or temporary employee must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, directed the Government to formulate a Scheme for regularisation of the services of temporary Lecturers who had rendered three years service with breaks by subjecting them to suitability through the medium of screening committee within four months of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The said case is not applicable to the facts of present case as in that case rule for recruitment were under consideration of the State Government and till the finalisation of the rules, regular selections were not possible and it was asserted that short term appointments were made in order to meet with the dire necessity of teachers. Whereas in the present case rules are already framed and are in existence and the members of the Organisation can be recruited in accordance with rules only. That apart, there is nothing in rule, which provides regularisation of such persons who are continuing for long time. In Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Supra), wherein teachers appointed temporarily on ad-hoc basis for three months or less with break of day or two by privately managed degree colleges. Despite the orders of the High Court State die not follow the order passed by the High Court which was passed with the agreement of the respondent. A plea of reservation was raised. It was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court that no difficulty was pointed out by the respondent for not giving the benefit of the High Court's order to the incumbents. Further the State regularised services of contract letrurers, local candidates, University lecturers, Engineering Colleges Lecturers etc. In this back-ground their lordships of the Supreme Court gave certain directions observing as under : - "all the same such policy decisions of government in favour of one or the other set of employees of sister department are bound to raise hopes and expectations in employees of other departments. That is why it is incumbent on governments to be more circumspect in taking such decisions. The petitioners may not be able to build up any challenge on discrimination as employees of government colleges and private colleges may not belong to the same class yet their claim cannot be negatived on the same class yet their claim cannot be negatived onthe respondents' stand in the counter affidavit that the regularisation of temporary teachers who have not faced selection shal impair educational standard without explaining the effect of regularisation of temporary teachers of University and even technical colleges. Which being the unfortunate State of affairs this Court is left with no option but to issue following direction to respondents for not honouring its commitments before the High Court and acting contrary to the spirit of the order, and also due to failure of government in remaining vigilant against private management of the college by issuing timely directions and taking effective steps for enforcing the rules. " The aforesaid decision is not helpful to the appellant as in the present case nothing has been said that Lecturers working on similar posts have been regularised nor there is any earlier order of the Court as was in the said case, therefore, on the basis of above decision no direction can be issued.
(3.) IN Dr. A. K. Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of INdia & Ors. (6) ad-hoc Assistant Medical Officers (Class II) in the Railways, who were original appointed during August 1983 to July 1986 for six months were allowed to continue up to four years. Services of some of the said officers terminated for failure to avail of three chances for selection through UPSC and the rest were facing termination on joining of ASMO selected by UPSC. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court directed that the services of those appointed on ad-hoc basis up to October 1, 1984 to be regularised if they were found suitable. Since they experienced difficulty in adjusting the seniority. The matter again came up before their lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. M. A. Haque Vs. Union of INdia & Ors. (Supra ). Their lordships of the Supreme Court considered the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (7) and also considered the case of Dr. P. P. C. Rawani & Ors. etc. Vs. Union of INdia & Ors IN Dr. P. P. C. Rawani, case supernumerary promotional posts at every higher promotional state was ordered to be created. Their lordships repelled the suggestion of adopting the same course in M. A. Haque's case and observed that it might not be feasible in the medical service in the railways. It has also been observed that the creation of supernumerary posts had its own limitations, both Physical and financial. the burden of additional posts even when they were not necessary and could not be accommodated was not easy to carry. Their lordships further observed that the direction given in Dr. Rawani's case (supra) has to be confined to the special facts of that case and should not be extended to other case. IN any case, this Court should not give any such directions to the Railways. If, however, the Railways decide to follow that course, they can do so and nothing prevents them from doing it. We would rather refrain from creating a precedent by giving such directi6ns. Their lordships obseryed as under : - "we are also conscious of the fact that candidates in service have a disadvantage as against the fresh candidates in the tests particularly when they face the tests after a long lapse of time. As against this, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach. If a disregard of the rules and the by-passing of the Public Service Commissions are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. IN fact this Court has, of late, been witnessing a constant violation of the recruitment rules and a scant respect for the Constitutional proisions requiring recruitment to the services through the Public Service Commission. It appears that since this Court has in some cases permitted reguiarisation of the irregularly recruited employees some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorting to irregular recruitments. The result has been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidates dictated by various considerations are being recruited as a matter of course. " IN Narendra Chandha & Ors. Vs. Union of INdia (Supra ) wherein officers were promoted without following the procedure prescribed in the rules and worked continuously for long periods without being reverted. Under these circumstances the Court directed that their period of continuous offitiation should be counted for seniority. IN the aforesaid Dr. M. A. Haque's case (supra) their lordships of the Supreme Court have refrained from creating a precedent inspite of the fact that in some cases reguiarisation was so permitted. Further that case pertains to seniority of the employees who were regularised by the order of the Court but their seniority remained to be fixed. Likewise in the case of Narendra Chandha & Ors. (supra), the promotions made earlier without following rules were continued under the circumstances of that case. Therefore, the said decisions are not helpful to the petitioner- appellant. The case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (Supra) is not helpful to the petitioner-appellant as that case was of subordinate services of class IV employees and on the basis of the analogy of the said case no relief can be granted to the petitioner-appellant. In the instant case, as stated above, the recruitment to the post of Lecturer for colleges is governed by the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1986, which are framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. There is no provision for reguiarisation of service of a Lecturer, who was appointed temporarily or on ad-hoc basis. Therefore, no direction can be issued for regularising the ad-hoc temporary teachers and the recruitment can be made only in accordance with the said rules. In view of this, the learned Single Judge has relied on Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. (9) wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have Strongly condemned the practice of appointing persons on an ad-hoc and temporary basis and allow them and thereafter to regularise them in service. It has also been observed that no court can be a party to such exercise. Mr. Mridul has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on said decision as that decision relates to Jawahar Rojgar Yojana a temporary scheme but it is pertinent to note at this juncture that when their lordships had made observations of such a nature in such a case then they are of more importance and relevance for the purpose of present case, which relates to State Services where selection can only be made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules. So also the learned Single Judge considered the case of Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. (10) wherein appointments were made on temporary basis and services of employees were terminated on availability of proper recruited employees by Public Service Commission and the order of termination of services was not held to be illegal by their lordships of Supreme Court and only a direction was given to give sympathetic consideration. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that simply they are continuing in service for longer time no mandamus can be issued as the recruitment can only be made by the RPSC in terms of Rules of 1986. That apart the petitioner Organisation is not entitled to any relief prayed for on the basis of alleged material supplied in the writ petition. In view of above discussion, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are not inclined to interfere with the same. ;