GUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule the petitioners sought directions against proposed termination of their services on 31. 3. 98, and to continue them in service till regularly selected candidates are made available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission to replace them.
(2.) THE facts are borrowed from writ petition no. 884/98. THE respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 6. 10. 97 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in different subjects for a period of four months or till the availability of selected candidates from the R. P. S. C. , whichever is earlier. THE petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Lecturer. He was found suitable for the appointment to the post and was appointed in a College at Chmanpura Shahpura vide order dt. 15. 11. 97 upto 31. 3. 98. THE petitioner joined his duties on 18. 11. 97. THEreafter the R. P. S. C. also advertised posts to be filled in by selection vide advertisement no. 5/97-98 dt. 17. 12. 97. THE applications were required to be submitted to the R. P. S. C. upto 9. 2. 98. THE petitioner has also applied for the post. THE petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule were also appointed as Lecturers for the period ending on 31. 3. 98. The petitioner's case is that the term of the appointment of the petitioner is to expire on 31. 3. 98 and hence his services shall be terminated on 31. 3. 98 and by this act of the respondents he would be deprived of the emoluments for the pe- riod of summer vacation and for the period till regular appointments are given after selection. It has been prayed that in the appointment order of the petitioner the fixing of the term upto 31. 3. 98 is illegal in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Anita Kothari vs. State. It has been further prayed that the practice of giving temporary appointment upto the end of the academic session and to give fresh appointment on the commencement of next academic session is illegal as it a mechanism just to deprive the incumbents of emoluments for summer vacation whereas the vacations are part of the academic work and during that period the teachers get time to read new literature and update their knowledge. It has been prayed that the petitioner being qualified to hold the post of Lecturer should be allowed to continue till the regular appointments are made. In the return, the respondent's case is that the petitioner was given appointment for a fixed period i. e. upto 31. 3. 98 or till a candidate duly selected by the R. P. S. C. is made available whichever is earlier and therefore he has acquired to serve upto 31. 3. 98 only and his service will be terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment. It has been denied that the term of the appointment fixed upto 31. 3. 98 is illegal. It has been averred that the petitioner accepted the terms of the appointment and therefore now he cannot be permitted to challenge these terms. It is relevant to point out that under the interim orders passed by this Court all the petitioners are continuing in service even after 31. 3. 98. Mr. Mridul, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the termination of the petitioner on 31. 3. 98 is not permissible in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. He cited the following cases : Ratanlal vs. State of Haryana (1), Rajvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2), Mrs. Anita Kothari vs. State of Raj. (3) and Lecturers' Forum vs. State of Raj.
(3.) AS against this Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed for a fixed term and therefore they have no right whatsoever to continue after 31. 3. 98. He canvassed that neither there is violation of any rule or direction in appointing the petitioners for a fixed term. According to him the petitioners had accepted the terms of the appointment and they should not be permitted to challenge those terms. He submitted that the ratio of the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners is not that in each and every case the court should direct the continuance of the services of the teachers appointed on adhoc basis. He tried to distinguish the cases cited by Mr. Mridul. Relying on the cases of Dr. L. M. Nath vs. Dr. S. K. Kacker & Ors. (5), Deva Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (6), Dr. Aruna Pandey vs. Malviya Regional Engineering College (7), Smt. Shashi vs. State of Raj. (8) and Rajkiya Mahavidhyalaya Aasthai Vyakhyata Sangharsh Samiti vs. State of Raj. (9), Mr. Singhvi contended that the petitioners who were appointed on adhoc basis do not have a right to continue in service after 31. 3. 98. I have given the matter my anxious consideration. It is an admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioners was made on adhoc basis. This appointment was made under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational (Collegiate Branch Service) Rules, 1986. Rule 29 reads as follows :- "29 Urgent Temporary Appointment:- (1) A vacancy in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion under the rules may be filled in by the Government or by the Authority competent to make appointments as the case may be by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an Officer eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the service, where such recruitment has been provided under the provisions of these rules. Provided that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence where such concurrence is necessary; and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur. Provided further that in respect of a post in the service for which both methods of recruitment have been prescribed, the Appointing Authority or the Authority Competent to make appointments, shall not, save with specific permission of the Government in the Department of Personnel, fill the temporary vacancy against the direct rec- ruitment quota by a whole time appointment for a period exceedng three months otherwise than out of persons elibible for direct recruitment and after a short term advertisement as per procedure which may be laid down by the Government from time to time, upto the end of the academic session or till a candidate selected by the Commis- sion is made available, whichever is earlier. (2) xxx)". A reading of the above rule makes it clear that appointment on urgent temporary basis can be made to a maximum period of one year out of the persons eligible for direct recruitment and after a short term advertisement. ;