Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who were all appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the respondent University on ad hoc basis on different dates ranging between the year 1987 to the year 1990, are entitled to the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from the date of their initial appointment or not. The petitioners' services were procured in pursuance of different advertisements issued by the respondent University for appointment of teaching faculties on ad hoc basis. The principal ground of challenge to the petitioners' claim as advanced before the Court by Sh. Punia, learned senior counsel representing the respondent University was on the issue that as the initial appointment of the petitioners was on purely ad hoc basis and without undergoing the procedure of selection by a Selection Committee, they were not entitled to the benefit of CAS particularly looking to the Clause vi thereof. Clause vi of CAS reads as below: - "vi. The appointment was not ad -hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. ad hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided (a) the ad -hoc service was of more than one year duration (b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (c) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad -hoc service, without any break."
(3.) THE petitioners' assertion was that they had been appointed against regular vacancies after being subjected to a process of selection through the Selection Committee. The petitioners, in order to substantiate their claim for grant of benefit of CAS, bank upon the judgment dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14653/2010 "Rajeev Saxena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr." It is an admitted position that the said judgment was challenged by the State by filing a Letters Patent Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal. It is further stated that the judgment has received a seal of approval from the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well.;