Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is claiming relief of third selection grade and that has been denied by the respondents merely on the ground that according to the respondents, the petitioner yet is not a regularly appointee. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was originally appointed on ad hoc basis. Then, he completed 9 years service when he was given benefit of first selection grade and after completion of 18 years, he was given second selection grade. When the petitioner sought third selection grade after completion of 27 years of service, it is said that the petitioner is not regular appointee and as per circular of the Government dt. 17.02.1998, the petitioner cannot be given third selection grade.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent University vehemently submitted that the first and second selection grades were given to the petitioner wrongly as he was not a regular appointee and, therefore, he was not entitled to first and second selection grade whereas the respondents themselves have treated the petitioner's appointment as regular appointment and gave benefit about 18 years ago and thereafter about 9 years ago and when the petitioner has completed 27 years of service, the respondents cannot say that the petitioner's appointment was not regular appointment.;