M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THOUGH the above 17 numbers of petitions are not covered by the same set of Rules, inasmuch as some are governed by the Rajas-than Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), whereas others are not so governed, but a common question is involved in the each of the writ petitions whether the practice of appointing Lecturers at the start of the academic session and terminating their services on the last day of the academic session, can be upheld and can be said to be in accordance with the Rules ?
(2.) THE above number of first five writ petitions are from the Lecturers each of whom was appointed under Rule 29 of the Rules by making urgent temporary appointment. Smt. Shashi petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1247 of 1988 was for the first time appointed as Lecturer in History subject vide order dated November 20, 1987 in the Government Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Kotputli. She infact jointed her post on November 27, 1987. Prior to the aforesaid posting she also worked as Lecturer in different colleges as given below: - S. No. Name of college Period 1. Ch. B. R. G. Govt. Girls College, Sri Ganganagar. 14. 12. 83 to 5. 5. 84 2. -do- 19. 7. 84 to 18. 9. 84 & 5. 11. 84 to 6. 5. 84 3.-do- 12. 7. 85 to 23. 9. 85 4. Maharani Sudarshana College, Bikaner. 24. 9. 85 to 6. 5. 86 5. Sonadevi Sethia Girls College, Sujangarh, Distt, Churu. 1. 8. 86 to 9. 10. 86 5. 11. 86 to 6. 5. 87 3. 8. 87 to 2. 11. 87 THE academic session was to end on May 12, 1988 and as per the terms of appointment and in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules she was to be relieved on May 12, 1988, but was not relieved as a result of the stay in writ petition by this Court. Harpit Singh in Writ Petition No. 1263 of 1988 after completing his post-graduation in the yearl984 was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer on urgent temporary basis under order dated November 24, 1984 under the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch Rules, 1971, which Rules were repealed by sec. 38 of the Rules. He was re-appointed on urgent temporary basis on July 5, 1985 and relieved vide order dated May 6, 1986, again re-appointed on Nov. 3, 1987, and he received an order that he was to be relieved in the after-noon of May 12, 1988 i. e. the last day of academic session. It may also be stated that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') also issued advertisement on July 24, 1985, whereby amongst other subjects, 35 posts of Lecturers in Physics were also advertised. THE recruitment was to be made under Part IV of the Rules. A screening test as well as interview was to be held and the petitioner succeeded in the screening test and was called for inter view on February 25, 1986 in which he was successful also and the Commission sent two lists, the main list and the reserve list to the Government and as per the case of the petitioner whereas the main list contained names of 45 candidates, the reserve list contained names of 43 candidates and the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 24 in the reserve list. Rishbhan Chaturvedi in Writ petition No. 1305 of 1988 after having obtained a degree of Master of Arts in English Literature was initially appointed as Lecturer in Government College, Banner, where he served from September 17, 1984 to May 6. 1985. THEreafter he was re-appointed as Lecturer in Government College, Sawai Madhopur, where he worked from July 8, 1985 to October 4, 1985. THEreafter he was re-appointed as Lecturer in English in Government College, Sirohi from October 5, 1985 to May 6, 1986, in Government College, Barmer from July 24, 1986 to October 4, 1986 and in Government College, Sawai Madhopur from October 5, 1986 to May 6, 1987. THEreafter the petitioner was re-appointed as Lecturer in English Literature in Government College, Karauli on July 2, 1987 where he was to serve till the end of the academic session i. e. May 12, 1988 and before the end of the last day of the academic session he preferred a writ petition and continued under the stay order granted by this Court. Ramesh Kumar Sharma in Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1983 after passing his M. A. and M. Phil, examinations in English subject in the years 1981 and 1982 respectively was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer on urgent temporary basis on December 1, 1984 and served as Lecturer till May 6, 1985 when summer vacations started and he was re-appointed after summer vacation under order dated July 5, 1985 and worked as Lecturer till May 6, 1986. He was again re-appointed on July 14, 1986 and worked as Lecturer till May 6,1987 and re-appointed in the session 1987-88 under order dated July 28, 1987. His term was to expire on May 13, 1988 and relieving order was handed over to him by the Principal of Government College, Neem-ka-Thana where he was then working. He challenged that order and continued to work under stay order granted by this Court. Smt. Nalini Pareek in Writ Petition No. 1739 of 1988 is M. Phil, from Gujrat University and though initially she worked as Lecturer in Gujarat, as a result of her marriage with one Shri Prabodh Pareek at Jaipur she relinquished job there and after applying for the post of Lecturer was initially appointed on urgent temporary basis under Rule 29 of the Rules on November 3, 1987 under the orders of the Director of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur. She was relieved from her post on May 12, 1988 at the start of the summer break. An advertisement was issued by the Director of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur in news paper, 'rajasthan Patrika' dated May 31, 1988 and other papers by which the posts against which the petitioner and other persons were working were advertised for giving fresh appointments. She challenged the order relieving her. THEre is no stay from this Court and she is not continuing. In the second batch of writ petitions Narendra Yadav in writ petition No. 75 of 1988 came to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in Applied Arts in the Rajasthan School of Arts, Jaipur by the Director of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur under order dated February 28, 1986. The said order was passed under Rule 29 of the Rules. He was re-appointed on the basis of his merit of the year 1986 on July 5, 1986 but he was not re-appointed on December 22, 1987 and he filed the writ petition in this court on January 7, 1988 challenging the decision not to re-appoint him and it was ordered that he shall not be relieved. Gopal Ram Joshi in writ petition No. 148 of 1988 was also like Narendra Yadav appointed as Lecturer in Applied Arts in the Rajasthan School of Arts, Jaipur on July 5, 1986, was re-appointed on the basis of his merit from July, 1987, but he was not re-appointed on December 22, 1987, whereas others were appointed. He too filed writ petition in this Court and it does not appear that there is any stay so far as this case is concerned. Binod Kumar Singh in Writ Petition No. 1121 of 1988 was appointed as Lecturer on urgent temporary basis also in the Rajasthan School of Arts, Jaipur under order dated October 8, 1982. until either at the end of the academic Session or until such time as the Commission makes the selection, which ever is earlier. He was relieved on May 7, 1983. He was re-appointed in subsequent years at the beginning of the academic session and relieved at the end of it and continued till August 14, 1987. He was re-appointed on July 31, 1987, the term was extended till the end of the academic session. Ultimately he was relieved on May 6, 1987 last day of the academic session. He filed writ petition in this Court and this Court ordered that his service shall not be terminated. Ankit Patel in writ petition No. 1173 of 1988 was appointed as Lecturer in Sculpture at the Rajasthan School of Arts, Jaipur vide order dated September 24, 1983. He was relieved at the end of the academic session on May 5, 1984. He was re-appointed at the beginning of every session and was relieved at the end of every session. He was again appointed at the beginning of the session 1987-88 upto the end of the current academic session and he apprehending that he will be relieved on May 6, 1988, the last day of the academic session, preferred a writ petition in this Court and this Court ordered that he shall not be relieved unless regularly selected candidates from the Commission are available. Harshiv Kumar in writ petition No. 1196 of 1988 was appointed as temporary Lecturer in Painting in March, 1986, relieved on May 6, 1986, reappointed on July 8, 1986 and relieved on May 6, 1987. He was re-appointed on January 1, 1988 till the end of academic session and apprehending that he will be relieved on May 6, 1988 filed writ petition in this Court and this Court like any other writ petition stayed his relieving. In the third batch of writ petitions Miss Prabha Mathur in writ petition No. 1195 of 1988 was appointed as temporary Lecturer in Music on November 7, 1983 and was relieved on May 5, 1984. was re-appointed at the beginning of every academic session and relieved at the end of it till May 6, 1987. She was lastly appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that she will be relieved on May 6, 1988, the last day of academic session-preferred a writ petition in this Court and this Court passed an order that her service shall not be terminated till further orders. Miss Madhu Saxena in writ petition No. 1197 of 1988 was appointed as temporary Junior Lecturer in Dancing by the Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan on December 10, 1985 and was relieved on May 6, 1987 and was re-appointed for the academic session 1987-88 and was lastly appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that she may be relieved on May 6, 1988, the last day of academic sessions preferred a writ petition and her termination was stayed by this Court. Smt. Urmila Upadhyay in writ petition No. 1198 of 1988 was appointed as Lecturer in Tabla on October 27, 1984 and was relieved at the end of session on May 6, 1985. She was then re-appointed at the beginning of every academic session and relieved at the end of it. She was lastly appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that she will be relieved filed writ petition in this Court and this Court stayed the termination of her service, Rajeev Agarwal in writ petition No. 1199 of 1988 was appointed as temporary Junior Lecturer in Violin on December 10, 1985, was relieved of his post on May 6, 1986, re-appointed on the same post for academic session 1986-87 and was relieved at the end of the academic session. He was re-appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending his termination on the last day of the academic session preferred writ petition in this Court and this Court stayed the termination of his service. Shre Mohan Mathur in writ petition No. 1200 of 1988 was appointed as temporary Lecturer in Instrumental Sitar at the Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan, in 1981 was relieved at the end of session 1981-82, was re-appointed in the academic session 1982-83 and was relieved in 1983, re-appointed in academic session 1987-88 on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that he will be relieved on the last day of the academic session i. e. May 6, 1988 preferred writ petition in this court and his termination was stayed. Vijay Kumar Sidh in writ petition No. 1201 of 1988 was for the first time appointed as temporary Junior Lecturer in Tabla at the Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan from January 1, 1986 He was relieved at the end of academic session, was re-appointed and was relieved in May, 1987. He was lastly appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that he may be relieved on May 6, 1988 filed writ petition in this Court and this Court has ordered stay in his favour. The last of the petitioner in batch of these writ petitions in respect of the Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan, Jaipur is Smt. Prem Dave in writ petition No. 1202 of 1988. She was appointed as a Teacher in 1982 in Vocal Music, was relieved at the end of every term and re-appointed at the beginning of every academic session. She was lastly appointed on January 1, 1988 and apprehending that she may be relieved on the last day of academic session on May 6, 1988, preferred a writ petition in this Court and this Court granted a stay order in her favour. Having stated the facts in each case and before we deal with the question raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties, we may state that so far as the first five writ petitions are concerned, the appointments are governed by Rule 29 of the Rules. The second batch of five writ petitions is in respect of the Lecturers of Rajasthan School of Arts. Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur and their appointments were earlier made under the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971 and now are being made under the Rules. So far as the last batch of seven writ petitions is concerned, they are in respect of Rajasthan Sangeet Sansthan, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur and the said Institution was already being controlled and run by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan because the status was only of a School and not of a College. It was only in the year 1980 that the Institution was transferred to Directorate of College Education with a view to raise the status of the Institution to the status of a College and administrative decision was taken vide Government order dated September 27, 1980. A separate governing Council and Board of Studies was constituted for this Institution and it was under the Ministry of State for Arts, and Culture. The Governing Council was empowered to lay down the over all policy and to supervise the function of the Institution and also to supervise the business and work of the school. There were no Rules in force governing the service conditions of Lecturers of this School. The Rules are in process of being framed. It may be stated that till the finalisation of the Rules the policy of the State Government regarding appointment of temporary Lecturers is being made applicable.
(3.) AFTER notice was given to the non-petitioners, replies have been filed in some of the writ petitions, but as the replies in the three batches of the above number cases relating to Lecturers appointed by the Director of College Education in Government Colleges, in the School of Arts and Sangeet Sansthan have been filed in one or the other case, they will be considered for all the cases. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that practice of appointing Lecturers on urgent temporary/ad-hoc basis at the beginning of each academic session and terminating their services on the last day of academic session, re-appointing them again at the beginning of the next session is arbitrary, contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, amounts to the policy of 'hire and fire' and, therefore, must be struck down by this Court and such of the temporary Lecturers who are appointed on urgent temporary/ad-hoc basis must be allowed to continue till regularly selected candidates under the Rules are available through the media of the Commission. In support of their contention the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the case of Ratan Lal vs State of Haryana (1 ). They also placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated November 30, 1987 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1583 of 1987, Anita Mehta v. State of Rajasthan. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that taking advantage of unemployment of educated youth, appointments are being made for the academic session, they are terminated on the last day of the academic session, no salary for vacation is paid to such of the Lecturers, They are deprived of such other benefits to which they would be otherwise entitled in case a policy of 'hire and fire' is not adopted In case of Ratan Lal (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the case of ad-hoc appointees at the commencement of an academic year and terminating their services before the coming of the next summer vacations, or earlier, and to re-appoint them again under the same terms and conditions. In their cases, it appears, that a substantial number of ad-hoc appointments were made in the then existing vacancies which remained unfilled for three to four years. The Supreme Court observed as under: - "it is the duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in those vacancies in accordance with the rules as early as possible. The State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in these cases. It has been appointing teachers for quite some time on an ad-hoc basis for short periods as stated above without any justifiable reason. In some cases the appointments are made for a period of six months only and they are renewed after a break of a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad-hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, Medical leave, Privilege leave, etc, available to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to these ad-hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Govt. These ad-hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy of 'adhocism' followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitu-tion. Such a situation cannot be permitted to last and longer. It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model-employer. " The Supreme Court directed the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the relevant rules. It was further observed that the State Government may also consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to those posts in the case of those who have been victims of this system of 'ad-hoc' appointments. The Supreme Court also deprecated the policy of the State Govt, under which 'ad-hoc' teachers were denied by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred in the judgment the various benefits and ordered that they shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under the orders of the Supreme Court and those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave. They will also be granted such leave in accordance with the Rules. This Court in the case of Anita Mehta (supra), a case of a temporary Lecturer appointed in Government Women's Polytechnic College, Jaipur where there were no Rules governing the conditions of service, placing reliance on the aforesaid case of Ratanlal held that the practice followed by the State Government in making ad hoc appointments on the posts of Lecturers in Government Womens' Polytechnic College in one session only i. e. from July/august to May and terminating their services in May and to make fresh appointments for the next session again, cannot be approved. ;