- (1.) - All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved in all of them is similar.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as teachers on part-time honorarium basis. A policy was evolved by the University of Rajasthan by which the Head of the Departments were permitted to engage services of the retired teachers/ Ph. D. Holders/ Research Scholars for taking classes to un-covered workload of the Department on honorarium basis. In respect of the year 1995-96. THE instructions were issued on 21. 9. 1995 by the Registrar to the Head of the Departments. Teaching Department/ Principals of the University constituents colleges and Director PIM/sasc. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Besides the various conditions it was contemplated that the PH. D. holders would be paid Rs. 75/- per period basis up to a ceiling of Rs. 4,000/- per month and at least two periods per day will be assigned. THE Research Scholars were to be paid Rs. 40/- per period upto the ceiling of Rs. 2,200/- per month and minimum two periods per day will be assigned. THE policy was again continued with minor modifications for the academic session 1995-96 vide circular dated 27/29. 7. 1995. All these petitioners were appointed under the said policy and the sanction if Vich-Chancellor was also given. THE writ petitions were filed praying for regular appointment to the post of Lecturer/ Assistant professor and restraining the respondents from dis-continuing the services. In the case of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Vs. Narendra Singh Rathore, D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 537/95 decided o n 19. 7. 1995 the Division Bench of this court considered the claim of the part-time teachers and it was obser- ved that if the University is taking work from these part-time teachers, in almost the same manner like the regularly appointed teachers, then there is hardly any basis for paying a lesser amount to them only because they are termed as part-time teachers engaged on period basis. This judgment was considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. D. C. Dudi and others vs. University of Rajasthan and anothers, (1) decided on 1. 3. 1996 and it was observed that the appellants who have been appoin- ted on honorarium basis to cover the un-covered work-load of the respective departments are entitled to the salary quivalent to the minimum of pay scale of the regularly appointed lecturers of the Rajasthan University from today i. e. 1. 3. 96. The 1. 3. 1996. The respondents were also restrained from dis-continuing the services of the appellant till regular appointments to the post of lecturer are made in accordance with law. The respondents were also left at liberty to assign the work to the appellants which is assigned to the regularily appointed lecturers. On the basis of the above decisions, it is submitted that the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated till the academic session 1995-96 is over and that they are entitled for the salary equivalent to the minimum pay scale of the regularly appointed lecturers of the Rajasthan University, at least from the date the order was passed by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appointment to those lecturers was in order to meet out the emergency situation of non-availability of the qualified lecturers and, therefore, this stop gap arrangement for the fixed period was made. Neither they are entitled for equal pay forequal work nor are entitled regularisation as for the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) the selection has to be made in accordance with the Ordinance/rules made in this regard.
(3.) IT may be observed that in the case of Narendra Singh Rathore Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, (2) decided on 26. 5. 1995, the learned Single Judge declared that they are entitled to salary equivalent to the minimum pay scale of regularly appointed Lecturers of the University from the date of filing of the petition. This judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in D. B. Special Appeal No. 537/95 (referred to above ). In the matter of Dr. D. C. Dudi (supra) the benefit of salary equivalent to the minimum pay scale of regularly appointed Lecturers of the Rajasthan University was given from 1. 3. 1996 and thus, the two Benches have taken different views. With regard to regularisation of service or not terminating the services of these part-time Lecturers till regularly selected candidates from Rajasthan Public Service Commission are available, no such plea was taken in the case of Narendra Singh Rathore, referred to above, while another Division Bench in the case of Dr. D. C. Dudi, referred to above, has directed that the respondents are restrained from discontinuning the services till the regular appointments to the post of Lecturer are made in accordance with law. Besides this,it is also observed that the respondents are at liberty to assign the work which is assigned to the regularly appointed lectu- rers. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if these directions are complied with, a problem would arise as to how many persons could be retained or continued because it is an established principle of law that if the work is not available with the employer, he is entitled to terminate the services and these part-time lecturers were given the work load not equivalent which was being performed by the regularly appointed lecturers and the number of lectuers differ from person to person and they are are given full work the result would be that Certain candidates would become surplus. ;