Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) THE judgment and order dated 21.03.2012, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1377/2002, instituted by the appellant herein, constitutes the subject matter of impugnment in the present appeal. By the decision impugned, the writ petition has been dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard Ms. Anita Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma & Mr. Rachit Sharma, Advocates for the respondents. Briefly stated the foundational facts, essential for the disposal of the instant standoff, are that the appellant/writ -petitioner was engaged by the respondent -University to render services as Lecturer in the Department of History for the session 1995 -96 to cover the uncovered workload qua the subject of History by Officer Order No. Estt. 1/95/Hist. /20673 -6761, dated 17.11.1995. According to the appellant/writ -petitioner, her engagement was on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter No. Estt/95/1713 -57, dated 28/29.07.1995 of the Registrar of the University, amongst others, stipulating payment @ Rs. 75/ -per period with the maximum ceiling of Rs. 4,000/ -per month, taking into account the fact that she had obtained Ph. D. from the University of Rajasthan after conducting the research work in the History Department thereof. She started rendering her services from 21.11.1995 and claimed that for the session 1996 -97 as well, she was allowed to take classes as per the letter dated 13.11.1996 of the Head of the Department of History & Indian Culture, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(3.) AS the matter rested at that, several persons appointed as Lecturers in different subjects and specialities purely on casual and ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement by the University of Rajasthan on paltry honorarium, being aggrieved by the delay in making the regular appointment of Lecturers and in not appointing them on substantive basis, approached this Court with a batch of writ petitions, remonstrating against the arbitrary and exploitery approach of the institution, contending that whereas on one hand, to meet the extra teaching workload, stopgap arrangements were being and services of qualified Lecturers are extracted on ad hoc basis on the other, their services at the end of the academic session were being terminated, thus, adopting the rule of hire and fire. The respondent -University asserted per contra that the petitioners therein were not regularly appointed Lecturers under the provisions of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and that their appointments were purely on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement to ensure that the students may not suffer. According to it, the petitioners having willfully and voluntarily agreed to work as per the terms and conditions made known to them before accepting the assignment, it was improper on their part to express any grievance against the same.;