Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) THE proceedings in hand witness impugnment of the judgments and orders dated 26.3.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in appeals no. 105/2002 and 289/1998 thereby interfering with the orders dated 2/6.4.2002 and 15.7.1998 respectively terminating the services of the respondent no. 2 herein with the appellant -College. Thereby in essence the learned Tribunal restored the respondent no. 2 in service with the consequential benefits.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Tatiya for the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 -MDS University and Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned Additional Government Counsel. The sequence of events encompassing the orders dated 15.7.1998 and 2/6.4.2002 being common reference thereto petition -wise is obviable for the sake of brevity. As pleaded, the appellant no. 1 -Shri Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and the appellant no. 2 -Shri Jain Terapanth College, Ranawas (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the College") is an institution established by it for imparting education at the under -graduate and post -graduate levels. The College is a non -government aided institution governed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant -in -aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules") and receives aid to the extent of 90% of its approved expenditure. The College is recognized by the University Grants Commission (for short, hereafter referred to as "the UGC") and affiliated to the Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the MDS University"). According to the appellants, the respondent no. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in Jeevan Vigyan and Jain Vidhya (for short, hereinafter referred to as "JV and JV") with the College with effect from 7.7.1995 on purely ad hoc basis at a fixed pay of Rs. 2200/ - + 50% DA till a candidate on regular basis was selected. As the respondent no. 2 did not possess the necessary qualification for regular appointment to the post, he was not accorded the pay scale of Rs. 2200 -4000 therefor and was also not granted the increments. The appellants have averred that they had started the course in the subject of JV and JV in the year 1991 with temporary affiliation of the MDS University, whereafter permanent affiliation was granted to the said course on a lapse of 6 years. The appellants have further averred that the College is required to follow the provisions of the MDS University Act, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and instructions inter -alia for appointment of teaching staff. According to the appellants, as per the letter dated 10.8.1996 issued by the MDS University prescribing the qualifications for appointment of teaching staff, a person to be appointed as Lecturer is required to possess good academic record with atleast 55% marks or equivalent grade in the Master's degree in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. In addition, the candidate should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturer conducted by the UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC or should have submitted his/her Ph.D. thesis or completed his/her M.Phil degree by 31.12.1993.
(3.) THE appellant -College to secure a regular appointment to the post of Lecturer (JV and JV) issued an advertisement and in the interview that followed on 28.7.1997, three candidates including the respondent no. 2 did appear. However, as none of the candidates was found to be possessing the requisite qualification for the post as they had not passed the eligibility test for Lecturer conducted by the UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC or had not submitted their Ph.D. thesis or completed their M.Phil degree by the 31st December, 1993, the Selection Committee decided to re -advertise the post. In these circumstances, according to the appellants, the respondent no. 2 was allowed to continue on the post on ad hoc basis as before. In their second endeavour through advertisement dated 2.7.1998, only candidate, namely, Anekant Kumar Jain was found to be possessed of the requisite qualification and therefore, he was engaged pending final selection. As a consequence, the services of the respondent no. 2 having been terminated by the order dated 15.7.1998, he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal under section 19(2) of the Act which was registered as appeal no. 289/98. By the order dated 31.7.1998, the learned Tribunal directed the appellants not to appoint any person on the post involved. Eventually, however, as the candidate, who had been engaged pending final selection did abandon the post, the appellants restored the earlier arrangement whereunder the respondent no. 2 started rendering his services again in the post. The appellants have averred that this arrangement had to be made to ensure that the students did not suffer.;