PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE on similar set of facts same relief has been sought, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners are claiming appointment as temporary lecturer as also minimum of the salary payable to a regularly selected Lecturer. THE petitioners have also prayed for directions to make regular selections to the post of Lecturers in the respondent University. This Court under similar circumstances, had tried to resolve the controversy by issuing certain directions in the case of Om Prakash Pareek vs. University of Rajasthan and another, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4362/1996, decided on 11. 10. 1996 (1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 676 ). While taking note of the entire scheme as well as all the rules, regulations and guidelines laid by the University Grants Commission from time to time, the Court issued following directions:- " 1. The respondent University shall get the uncovered teaching work loss of the departments (subject wise)/assessed/determined for the academic session 1996-97 through the work-load committee if the same has not been done as yet. This exercise shall be completed within two weeks from today. 2 (i) Such petitioners and other similarly circumstances Lecturers, who possess the requisite academic qualifications as prescribed by the University Grants Commission and approved by the respondent University and have served for two or more academic sessions, shall have the first preference to get appointment for the academic session 1996-97. Their appointment shall continue till regular selections are made by the University. They shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed Lecturers. Such Lecturers who were in employment of the University in the last academic session ending in March, 1996, shall be treated to be in continuous service without any break and they shall be paid minimum of the pay scale from 1. 03. 1996 to be in parity with the decision in Dr. D. C. Dudi's case. Such Lecturers who have served for two or more academic sessions, but were not in employment in the last academic session, shall be given fresh appointment and they shall be entitled to get the salary from the date of their appointment. The University/constituent Colleges shall be entitled to assign them the same number of period per week as is assigned to a regularly appointed Lecturer as per the Ordinance/regulations of the University. The Lecturers accepting the assignment will have to submit an undertaking that he/she is not employed at any other place out of the University. (ii) That the petitioners (Lecturers) and other similarly situated persons having a term of service for a period less than two academic sessions, shall have a second preference subject to the availability of teaching work load after adjusting those Lecturers who had served for two or more academic sessions with the University. In other words, they will have no right to be appointed or to continue in service if no uncovered work-load is available in their respective subjects. If uncovered teaching work load is available in the subject/subjects then, such person who had taught in the last academic session, shall have preference in appointment/continuing in service and they shall also be paid minimum of the pay scale and deemed to be in continuous service from the last academic sessions. Such Lecturers shall also be entitled to get minimum of regular pays scale from 1. 03. 1996. After adjusting such Lecturers, if any un-covered teaching work-load is available in any subject or subjects, fresh appointments shall be made amongst those Lecturers who had earlier served in the University. All such appointees shall be entitled to get the minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment. Note:- Ph. D. holders and Research Scholars shall be treated at par in making appointments, but in case of a Research Scholar, if he accepts the assignment, he will have to forgo scholarship for the period he remains in service as Lecturer on minimum of the pay scale. 3. After above adjustments, still if there remain uncovered teaching work-load in any subject, the University shall be free to engage retired teachers of the University i. e. of the University of Rajasthan, having requisite academic qualifications on such terms and conditions to be decided by the University, including payment of remuneration as per period basis. The retired teachers have already played their innings and they should feel that their service was being taken to take benefit of their experience for the benefit of the students as a social work. 4. Having trapped all the above resources, if person having requisite academic qualification is not available in any subject, the University shall be free to engage any person having lesser qualification on such terms and conditions to be specified by the University including payment of remuneration as per period basis. In continuance the Court also issued following directions:- " To resolve the dispute that may be raised by any person for non-consideration of his candidature in light of the above directions, the Vice Chancellor of the University shall appoint a committee consisting of three responsible persons. The candidates will have to produce the requisite information/documents in support of his grievance before the said Committee. The decision given by the Committee shall be implemented by the respondent University. Since the regular selections/appointments had not been made to the post of Lecturer in the respondent University since 1989, expressing great anxiety, the Court directed the respondent University to make regular selections to the above post as early as possible, but in no case later than 15. 03. 1997 positively. The selection process was to be commenced within fortnight. More than 16 years have lapsed since the last regular selections were made. The specific directions issued by this Court have also not been complied with for last more than 9 years. Adhoc temporary stop gap arrangement is continuing for last more than a decade. Due to sheer apathy and indifference of the concerning authorities no steps whatsoever have been taken to make regular selection in spite of clear directions issued by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent University also could not give any satisfactory explanation for such sheer lapse on the part of the authorities.
(3.) THIS Court had the occasion of examining the affairs of the respondent University so far as appointments and selections of the teaching staff in case of Dr. S. K. Kumbhaj vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. , SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2692/1998 and connected matters decided on 9. 5. 2005. A baffling factual picture had been brought on record in the above case which has duly been referred in the judgment itself. Out of total sanctioned strength of 703 Lecturers/assistant Professors, only 287 Lecturers are working in the respondent University on adhoc temporary basis either under the working arrangement as per guidelines issued by this Court in case of Om Prakash Pareek (supra) or otherwise. Such adhoc temporary Lecturers are still continuing in service without facing any regular selection and now counting by number they are exerting all shorts of pressure for their regularization under mistaken sympathies. Even the authorities are not able to take any decision for such regularization. Obvious reason been the same is not permissible under the law and relevant regulations. With the changing time the education system has also undergone a sea-change. Thousands of young more meritorious scholars and candidates are aspiring for a career on the teaching side in the University. Adhocism has time and again been deprecated by the Courts. Foundation of nation is based on proper education. However, inspite of making promises in meetings, seminars and discussions, the authorities have not been able to get out of deep slumber. The University authorities and the State Government appear to be totally helpless. Even the Chancellor has been made a silent spectator. No further comments are required to be made on the affairs of the respondent University. In academic discussions, all shades of social observers gravely proclaim that education is a continuous process that flows concurrent to an individual's life. But outside the sterile confines of seminar rooms, they covertly accept that the institutionalization of education is inescapable. Subservience to this global myth leads to the shackling of the human mind. Education is a means by which human beings interpret and analyze the world around them. It equips them to make rational decisions and gain a greater control of themselves. But our public education policy on the other hand appears to have contributed to the degeneration of society. The obvious victims are our Universities, which are the culmination of the formal education system. The final gateway through which thinking people enter the world. The institutionalization results in to teaching bureaucracy and sycophantic system. The sinister effect further creates lot of frustration not only among teachers but students as well. The time has come to breakaway this sinister effect. ;