JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ against the respondents to allow him to continue on the post of Senior Technician, ET.NMR and to regularise his service on that post in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-3500 since 1987 and to grant him consequential benefits. 2. Case, as set out by the petitioner in his writ petition, is that he was appointed as Technical Assistant, Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan on 8.12.81 and after successful completion of the period of probation, he was confirmed with effect from 1.4.86 by an order dated 27.6.86 of the respondent University. In the year 1986-87, the respondent University purchased Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer from Japan for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs. The petitioner was sent for special training at JEOL ltd., Tokyo for maintenance of JEOL Model JNM-FX-90 0 FT-NMR Spectometer. After having successfully undergone the training, for which certificate Annexure-3 was given by the Company, the petitioner joined back as Technical Assistant. On 12.3.85 the petitioner made a representative for being given higher pay scale because he was operating NMR Spectometer since 1985. According to the petitioner a post of Senior Technician FT-NMR in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-3500 was sanctioned by the University Grants Commission in the year 1988 for the Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan. Essential qualifications for the said post were also specified by the University Grants Commission. The petitioner made a representation for being given appointment as Senior Technician, FT-NMR. The case of the petitioner was strongly recommended by Dr. R.K.Bansal, NMR incharge. His case was also recommended by the Head of Department, Department of Chemistry and ultimately he was given appointment as Senior Technician, FT-NMR with effect from July 1991, Annexure-6, on ad hoc basis as per approval given by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan for such appointment. This appointment was given for a period of six months. When the period was going to expire, Dr. A.K.Rai, Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme in the Department of Chemistry, wrote to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan for extending the term of appointment of the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar (Estt.-II), wrote back to the Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme, Department of Chemistry that Vice Chancellor has not extended the period of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner beyond 28.1.92. A.K.Rai, Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme in the Department of Chemistry, wrote to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan for extending the term of appointment of the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar (Estt.-II), wrote back to the Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme, Department of Chemistry that Vice Chancellor has not extended the period of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner beyond 28.1.92. On the basis of that letter, the petitioner was directed to work on his original post. 3. The petitioner has claimed that his performance as Senior Technician, FF-NMR has been exceedingly good and no other person fulfils the conditions of eligibility laid down for the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR. Notwithstanding this, the respondent University has reverted him to the post of Technical Assistant. The petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-8 dated 25.2.92 of the Scientist-in-Charge. Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Jaipur in support of his assertion that his performance has been exceedingly good. The petitioner has asserted that the decision of Respondent University not to continue him on the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR, is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. This decision has been taken for reasons which are wholly unrelated to the requirement of service as well as performance of the petitioner. 4. In reply, the respondent University has pleaded that the petitioner was no doubt recruited as Technical Assistant and was confirmed on the post but he is not the senior most Technical Assistant. The petitioner has no legal right to work for maintenance of NMR equipment and he could be transferred to other equipment in the capacity of Technical Assistant. Earlier the petitioner was handling NMR equipment of lower capacity. When more advanced equipment was purchased from Japan, the petitioner was sent for training in view of his earlier experience. However, on the basis of this training, the petitioner has not acquired any right to be appointed and continued on the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR. The respondent University has asserted that qualifications for the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR do not exist. The statement made by the respondent University is that such qualifications are under consideration. It has then stated that the NMR equipment was not being run and is quite obsolete and for the last three months, it is not in use on account of non-availability of spare parts. The statement made by the respondent University is that such qualifications are under consideration. It has then stated that the NMR equipment was not being run and is quite obsolete and for the last three months, it is not in use on account of non-availability of spare parts. In regard to the recommendations made by the authorities of Chemistry Department, the respondent University has stated that the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR is a selection post and it is to be filled by advertisement and open competition. The University has further stated that various Technical Assistants, who are equally eligible and some of whom are senior to the petitioner, represented to the Vice Chancellor about the special treatment being shown to the petitioner in the form of appointment on ad hoc basis as Senior Technician. On a consideration of the matter and looking to the fact that NMR machine was not being used and has become obsolete, extension to the petitioner was not granted. Thus, in substance the case of respondents is that the petitioner was given purely ad hoc appointment for a specified period and when representations were made by other Technical Assistants, it was decided not to continue him on the post of Senior Technician. 5. A rejoinder has been submitted by the petitioner in which he has reiterated that his performance as Senior Technician, FT-NMR has been very good. He has been operating NMR equipment continuously since.1985. Maintenance and operation of FF-NMR machine is not an ordinary job. It can only be done by a trained and qualified person. He has placed on record Annexure-11 to 15 to show that his work has been appreciated at various levels. The petitioner has stated that qualifications for the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR has already been laid down by the University Grants Commission and accepted by the University. He fulfils these qualifications. The petitioner has denied the statement of respondents that NMR equipment is obsolete. He has further stated that the equipment was not working due to want of Air Conditioning and not due to want of spare parts. After two new Air Conditioners were installed, FT-NMR equipment is properly working. Reference in this context has been made to notice dated 4.7.92 (Annexure-16) issued by Department of Chemistry. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed by respondent University on 17.12.92. After two new Air Conditioners were installed, FT-NMR equipment is properly working. Reference in this context has been made to notice dated 4.7.92 (Annexure-16) issued by Department of Chemistry. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed by respondent University on 17.12.92. Therein it has been stated that after appointment of the petitioner as Senior Technician in NMR, Shri D.K. Gupta, Instrument Supervisor, made a representation on 7.8.91 for being considered for appointment on ad hoc basis as Trained Electric Mechanic in the scale of Rs. 1600-1900. Dr. D.C. Gautam, who is working as Scientific Officer in the Department of Chemistry, made a representation on 5.8.91 that he be given promotion on the post of Professor in X-Ray. Both of them claimed parity with the petitioner. During the course of examination of their representations, it was noted that the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR is a post which can be filled by open advertisement. It was, therefore, suggested that the post be properly advertised and filled by selection. In view of this position, a decision was taken to withdraw ad hoc appointment of the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor approved the proposal and then direction was given to the Department of Chemistry not to continue appointment of petitioner. Despite this, the Department of Chemistry wrote two more letters and ultimately the petitioner was conveyed with this decision on 27.4.92. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent University has very fairly placed before the Court record for its perusal. This record shows that the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR and some other posts were sanctioned by the University Grants Commission prior to June 1.991. In response to a letter dated 3.6.91 written by Prof. R.C. Mehrotra, Department of Chemistry to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, the University Grants Commission wrote to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan on 20.6.91 that the Commission has considered the proposal of the University and agreed for making appointment against the technical posts allocated under the scheme pending approval of the Government. The University Grants Commission had also intimated the qualifications for the post of X-Ray Crystellographer. Senior Technician for FT-NMR and Documentation-Administrative Officer (Technical Services), which were sanctioned in the Special Assistance Programme of the University Grants Commission for selected Departments of the various Universities. The University Grants Commission had also intimated the qualifications for the post of X-Ray Crystellographer. Senior Technician for FT-NMR and Documentation-Administrative Officer (Technical Services), which were sanctioned in the Special Assistance Programme of the University Grants Commission for selected Departments of the various Universities. Qualifications for the post of Senior Technician, FT NMR are as under : "At least second class B.E./B. Tech./M. Sc. degree with two years experience of operation of FT-NMR Machine and repair/maintenance of modern instruments. or Diploma in Engineering/B. Sc. with 8 years experience in operation of sophisticated instruments/repair and maintenance of modern equipments. Out of 8 years, experience of preceding 5 years should be in the operation/ maintenance of FT NMR." 8. On the basis of a recommendation made by the Chemistry Department, the Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan granted approval for appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis as Senior Technician, FT-NMR. This approval was conveyed by the Office of Registrar to the Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme. This letter reads thus : "With reference to your letter No. Chem. 91-92/1393 dated July 9, 1991 on the above subject, I am directed to convey the approval of the Vice-Chancellor to appoint Shri Suman Kumar Gupta, (presently working as Technical Asstt. in FT NMR) on adhoc basis, as Senior Technician, FT-NMR for six months on usual terms and conditions in the grade of Rs. 2200-3500 against the sanctioned post available under present phase of special assistance programme of the Chemistry conveyed by the UGC vide its letter dated 8.3.1989. The UGC vide its letter No. F. 6-7/82 (SR-I) RBA-I dated 29.6.1991 has further given its clearance for making appointments against the technical posts allocated under the scheme pending the approval of the State Government. However, you are, further advised to take steps for the appointment on all the sanctioned technical posts as per procedure and norms applicable under the guidance of Establishment Section with reference to UGC's latest letter dated 20.6.1991. However, you are, further advised to take steps for the appointment on all the sanctioned technical posts as per procedure and norms applicable under the guidance of Establishment Section with reference to UGC's latest letter dated 20.6.1991. A copy of appointment letter and joining report of Shri Suman Kumar Gupta, (in triplicate) may be sent to this office for onward transmission to the UGC and others." When the University Grants Commission made certain queries from the University of Rajasthan, the University wrote a letter dated 16.11.91 to the Secretary, University Grants Commission that appointment of the petitioner has been made on ad hoc basis with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and the University will take steps for making appointments as per rules in due course of time on 22.4.92 the Dy. Registrar (Estt. II) wrote to the Head of Chemistry Department to intimate the qualifications to be proposed for the post of Senior Technician FT NMR sanctioned by the UGC during SAP Phase III, for consideration of the Standing Committee appointed by the Syndicate. The Co-ordinator, Special Assistance Programme, Department of Chemistry wrote back on 27.4.92 that he is sending the qualifications for the three technical posts and also that these qualifications have been approved in the meeting of Advisory Committee held on 20.3.92 under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor and that the University has approached to the Government for taking over the financial liability of Special Assistance Programme in Chemistry after March 1995. He also requested that the post be advertised for ad hoc appointment by mentioning the qualifications approved by the Advisory Committee. He wrote another letter on 23.5.92 to the Deputy Registrar (Estt. II), University of Rajasthan and requested the University to call meeting of the Standing Committee appointed by the Syndicate for finalising the recommended qualifications. It also transpire from file of Shri D.K. Gupta that he did made a representation for appointment as Trained Electric Mechanic and Dr. D.C. Gautam made representation for appointment as Professor in X-Ray. It has been then noted that the post of Trained Electric Mechanic was advertised on 11.8.90 and applications had been received but the applications could not be processed further and the post has to be re-advertised. It was noted by the Registrar some time in the month of September 1991 itself that the post is to be advertised by for open selection. It was noted by the Registrar some time in the month of September 1991 itself that the post is to be advertised by for open selection. He also noted that the Head/Coordinator, Special Assistance Programme had given promotion to Shri Suman Kumar Gupta and he may be asked to withdraw the order in view of the counter representation. The Vice Chancellor approved the note of the Registrar on 23.9.91 and on that basis, term of appointment of the petitioner has not been extended. 9. Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the respondent University has arbitrarily denied extension in the term of appointment of the petitioner and that even without advertising the post and filling the same by making selection on the basis of merit and without making any effort to fill the post by any other mode, the respondent University has discontinued appointment of the petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent University, has on the other hand argued that the decision taken by the University is neither arbitrary nor it suffers from malice. The post of Senior Technician had been filled only on ad hoc basis without even finalisation of the qualifications. When others made representations, the matter was re-examined and a decision was taken not to continue the petitioner in service. Shri Sharma argued that this Court must not interfere with the decision of the University in the absence of any charge of mala fide exercise of power and that the University had absolute discretion in not giving appointment to the petitioner or not continuing the term of his appointment. 10. In my opinion the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent University in its absolute form, cannot be accepted. The respondent University comes within the ambit of the expression "other authorities" under Article 12 of the 'Constitution. It is a public body which is entrusted with an important public function/governmental function of imparting higher education to eligible persons. The respondent University is, therefore, under an obligation to act within the four corners of the constitutional dictates as well as the statutory provisions. Actions of the University as also other bodies or instrumentalities of the State are liable to be tested on the touch stone of fairness and public interest. The respondent University is, therefore, under an obligation to act within the four corners of the constitutional dictates as well as the statutory provisions. Actions of the University as also other bodies or instrumentalities of the State are liable to be tested on the touch stone of fairness and public interest. The rule that every State action must be fair and must be free from arbitrariness and which rule is hall mark of each democracy is applicable to the actions of universities also and even though a substantial amount of latitude is admissible to educational institutions in the matters relating to education, so far as services of the employees are concerned, the university cannot claim exemption from the rigorous compliance of the provisions relating to equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 and other statutory provisions. 11. In the light of the above principle, it has to be examined as to whether the decision of the University not to extend the term of appointment of petitioner as Senior Technician, FT NMR suffers from any arbitrariness and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or whether the University has acted bonafide and, therefore, no interference is called for by the Court. For determination of this issue, it would be appropriate to recaptulate few facts even at the cost of repetition; (1) it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a substantive Technical Assistant in the service, (2) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer worth Rs. For determination of this issue, it would be appropriate to recaptulate few facts even at the cost of repetition; (1) it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a substantive Technical Assistant in the service, (2) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer worth Rs. 40 Lacs has been purchased from JEOL Ltd. Japan, (3) the petitioner was deputed for training regarding maintenance of FT-NMR and he has successfully undergone such training at Tokyo, (4) the University Grants Commission has chosen Department of Chemistry of the University of Rajasthan under its Special Assistance Programme and it has sanctioned three technical posts including the post of Senior Technician, FT NMR, (5) the University Grants Commission has also laid down the qualifications for the three posts including that of Senior Technician, FT-NMR, (6) the qualifications specified by the University Grants Commission have been approved by the Advisory Committee of the Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan, meeting of which was chaired by none else than the Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, (7) on the basis of the recommendations made by Department of Chemistry, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan specifically approved appointment of the petitioner as Senior Technician, FT NMR and only then the petitioner was given such appointment, (8) the performance of the petitioner as Senior Technician, FT-NMR has been found to be more than satisfactory. He has been handling NMR equipment since 1985 and there is no complaint regarding his work performance etc., (9) the post of Senior Technician, FT NMR has not been advertised for regular selection, (10) it has not been shown by the respondents that any person in the service of University other than the petitioner fulfils the condition of eligibility for the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR which had been approved by the Advisory Committee of the Department, (11) the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR has not so far been abolished, (12) the decision of the University to withdraw the appointment of petitioner or not to continue the term of his appointment, is based on the sole consideration that other two persons, namely, Shri D.K. Gupta and Dr. D.C. Gautam have made representation for being given ad hoc appointment/promotion on higher post. 12. D.C. Gautam have made representation for being given ad hoc appointment/promotion on higher post. 12. From the above, it can be seen that the decision of the University not to extend the term of appointment of the petitioner is not based on any consideration having direct relation with the question of appointment on the post of Senior Technician, FT NMR, suitability or performance of the petitioner to work as Senior Technician, FT-NMR. No selected candidate has been made available and it is also not the case of the University that any other person more qualified and experienced qua the petitioner is being appointed to handle NMR equipments. The assertion of the respondent University that the qualifications have not been laid down for the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR, cannot be accepted in totality. Qualifications for this post have undoubtedly laid down by the University Grants Commission and they had been approved by the Advisory Committee of the University. They are now under consideration of the Standing Committee. It is also not the case of respondent University that the Standing Committee has modified or altered the qualifications suggested by the University Grants Commission or that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualifications. The mere fact that other persons have made a claim for appointment on higher posts and have cited the case of petitioner in support of their claim, there was little justification for the University to have ordered cancellation of appointment of the petitioner or to have refused to extend the term of appointment of the petitioner. Instead of giving benefit to others, the respondent University has tried to bring about a negative equality under a misconceived notion that the petitioner is similarly situated qua Shri D.K. Gupta and Dr. D.C. Gautam. The other reason given by the University is that other Senior Technical Assistants are available and they had represented against the promotion, does not find support from the documents placed on record as well as the files produced before the Court. Even otherwise, it has not been shown to the court that any Technical Assistant, trained and is having experience of handling NMR equipment. Thus the plea of the University that some other Senior Technical Assistant is available, is wholly untenable. 13. The right of an ad hoc appointee to continue in service, though not unlimited, is well recognised. Even otherwise, it has not been shown to the court that any Technical Assistant, trained and is having experience of handling NMR equipment. Thus the plea of the University that some other Senior Technical Assistant is available, is wholly untenable. 13. The right of an ad hoc appointee to continue in service, though not unlimited, is well recognised. In Anita Kothari v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1990 (1) RLR 87 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that ad hoc appointees have a right to continue,in,service till the availability of regularly selected persons and service of the ad hoc appointee cannot be terminated merely on the basis of the terms incorporated in the order of appointment. Similar view has been taken in Miss Arti Shah v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3368/92 decided on 24.9.92 , Nalin Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) WLC 32 and a decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3013/89 Lecturers' Forum v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 24.9.92. In State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, 1992 (4) SCC 118 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also laid down that service of an ad hoc appointee can be terminated only in order to make room for regularly selected persons. 14. From these decisions the principle which emerges is that an ad hoc appointee has a right to continue in the same capacity till being replaced by a regularly selected person. I may add to this and observe that an ad hoc appointee can be removed from service in eventualities like abolition of the post, unsatisfactory performance or where termination is brought about as a measure of disciplinary action. However, none of these contingencies were available with the respondent University when it took a decision not to extend the term of appointment of the petitioner. 15. The respondent University also cannot plead that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because he had accepted the terms and conditions of appointment. In this context it need only be observed that the petitioner had no occasion or option to negotiate his term of appointment as Senior Technician. He was bound to accept the conditions incorporated by the respondent University in its letter appointing the petitioner as Senior Technician. In this context it need only be observed that the petitioner had no occasion or option to negotiate his term of appointment as Senior Technician. He was bound to accept the conditions incorporated by the respondent University in its letter appointing the petitioner as Senior Technician. Thus, the petitioner has a right to question the legality and justification of the decision taken by the respondent University. 16. Apart from the above, I would like to observe that the decision taken by the respondent University cannot be treated as one taken in public interest. The petitioner has admittedly been working on NMR equipment for the last over seven years. The respondent University has not shown that any other person is available to handle sophisticated Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectometer purchased at the cost of Rs. 40 lacs. The documents placed on record show that the equipment is functional. Handling of such a sophisticated equipment by an untrained and inexperienced person is a risk for that person as well as the equipment. Ignoring this important factor the respondent University has taken a decision to bring an end to the working of the petitioner as Senior Technician, FT-NMR by not extending the term of his ad hoc appointment. The direct result of the decision of the University is that a sensitive and costly instrument will eigher be put in disuse or create hazard for others. This will clearly be against public interest. 17. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. Respondent University is directed to treat the petitioner as continuing on the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR without break and also to give him all consequential benefits. Continuance of the petitioner will however be subject to the availability of regularly selected person. His service will also liable to be terminated if it becomes necessary on the basis of disciplinary action which may be taken by the University. Abolition of the post of Senior 'Technician, FT-NMR will also disentitle the petitioner to continue on that post. Cost made easy.Writ petition allowed. *******