JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer for issue of a direction to the respondent to pay him salary in the regular pay scale of the post of Mistry (Electrical) and to regularise his services on the post of Mistry (Electrical). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner possesses academic qualification of Secondary pass from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. He has also passed examination from Industrial Training Institute in Electrical trade and he has been awarded National Trade Certificate in Electrician trade. The petitioner has successfully undergone National Apprenticeship Course as well. He was appointed as Mistry (Electrician) at Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura, for a period of 3 months on ad hoc basis for a fixed salary of Rs. 328/- per month by order dated 24/25th August, 1984, issued by the Director, Agriculture Experimental Station, Durgapura. The petitioner continued to work as Mistry (Electrical) till 15.4.1985 when his service was terminated. The Associate Professor (Agricutlure Engineering), under whom the petitioner was working expressed that there was requirement of a casual worker to work against the post of Mistry (Electrical). At the instance of the Associate Professor, the Zonal Associate Director wrote a letter dated 1.5.1985 to the Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura for issue of sanction so that the petitioner who possesses I.T.I. diploma in Electrical trade and who has passed Secondary School Examination with Science-Mathematics could be given appointment against the post of Mistry (Electrician). If pursuance of sanction given by the University, the petitioner was once again appointed against the post of Electrician by order dated 26.8.1985. Since then the petitioner has been continuously working in the services of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura. 3. Till sometime in the year 1988, the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura was under the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. In the year 1988, the Rajasthan Agriculture University, has been created and the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura has been transferred with men and material to the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. With that the petitioner has also become an employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. From the date of his appointment, he is being paid fixed wages per month. The amount of wages, of course, has been enhanced from time to time, with the revision of pay scale for the post of Mistry (Electrical). 4. With that the petitioner has also become an employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. From the date of his appointment, he is being paid fixed wages per month. The amount of wages, of course, has been enhanced from time to time, with the revision of pay scale for the post of Mistry (Electrical). 4. The petitioner has come out with the case that from the date of appointment, he has been discharging the duties of Pump Operator. He has been assigned duty of undertaking the repairing and maintenance of the Pump at the Agricultural Experiment Station, Durgapura and he has performed the job satisfactory. In support of his assertion, that he has been doing the work as Pump Operator, the petitioner has placed on record various letters written by the departmental authorities as well as the certificates issued in his favour. Great emphasis has been placed by the petitioner on the letter dated 1.5.1985 issued by the Zonal Associate Director, Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura to the Director, Agriculture Station, Durgapura. 5. Posts of Pump Operator and Assistant Mechanic came to be advertised on 5/7th March, 1986. The petitioner applied for the posts of Pump Operator and Assistant Mechanic. Interviews have been held on 18th and 19th July, 1986 for the post of Pump Operator and Assistant Mechanic respectively. The petitioner was called upon to appear for the interview by Annex. 5 dated 3.7.1986 and he appeared at the said interview. However, result of said interviews has not been announced. The petitioner has also come forward with the case that no separate trade of Pump Operator is available at the I.T.I., Jaipur and, therefore, no person can be awarded Diploma in the trade of Pump Operating by the I.T.I., Jaipur. His plea is that by denying him regular appointment, the respondent have discriminated him. Yet another plea raised by the petitioner is that although he has been adjudged suitable for appointment on the post of Pump Operator in the interview held on 18th July, 1986, the respondents have not issued order for his regular appointment and in this manner they have infringed his fundamental right of equality before law. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition. In the first instance, they have raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition at Jaipur Bench. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition. In the first instance, they have raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition at Jaipur Bench. On merit, they have stated that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant Mechanic (Electrical) as also the post of Pump Operator. In regard to this claim for appointment as Mistry (Electrical), the respondents have come forward with the case that the University had constituted a Committee in July, 1989 for adjudging the suitability of the existing employees by holding the job test and interviews and required steps are being taken for the purpose of adjudging the suitability of existing casual employees for their regular appointment. 7. In so far as the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same cannot detain the Court even for a moment from making an adjudication on the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that the Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura is within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner had been employed against a post at Durgapura. He has been working at Durgapur and his Appointing Authority is at Durgapura. The cause of action for making a grievance regarding non-regularisation of service as also for seeking declaration of result of the interviews held on 18/19th July, 1986, has drawn at Jaipur and, therefore, Jaipur Bench of this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 8. On the merits, I may take note of the fact that learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court minutes of the Selection Committee which met on 18th/19th July, 1986. This Committee has considered the candidature of the petitioner and other persons who had applied in pursuance of Advertisement dated 5/6th March, 1986. Name of the petitioner does not figure in the list of candidates who have been adjudged suitable for; appointment on the post of Pump Operator. His name does figure in the category of persons who were adjudged suitable for appointment on the post of Assistant Mechanic (Electrical), but placement of the petitioner amongst the persons found suitable is not sufficient to give a relief for appointment on the post of Assistant Mechanic (Electrical). The petitioner has himself not come forward with a case for his appointment as Assistant Mechanic (Electrical). The petitioner has himself not come forward with a case for his appointment as Assistant Mechanic (Electrical). Since the petitioner has not been adjudged suitable for appointment on the post of Pump Operator by the Selection Committee, it is not necessary for me to make an adjudication on the question as to whether the petitioner fulfills the eligibility conditions laid down by the University for the post of Pump Operator. No Court can grant a declaration or issue an order of appointment in favour of a person who has not been found suitable by a duly constituted Selection Committee. 9. Failure of the petitioner to succeed in his claim for appointment on the post of Pump Operator, however, does not bring an end to the controversy. The facts which have been placed on record by the petitioner and which have been by and large not controverted by the respondents, it is clearly established that the petitioner has been in the services of the respondents since 24/25th August, 1984 with a short interregnum of about 4 months. Since 26.8.1985, he has been continuously working with the respondents and by now he has completed over 8 years and almost 6 months of continuous service. The respondents have themselves come with the case that they have constituted a Committee for adjudging the suitability of the existing casual employees. That Committee was constituted as early as in the year 1989. So far that Committee has not undertaken the exercise for adjudging the suitability of the existing employees. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to advance any convincing reason for not regularising the service of the existing casual employees in accordance with Annex. R/1. However, Shri Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, made a statement during the course of hearing that Chancellor of the Agriculture University, Bikaner had at one time directed that the regular selections be not made on any post in the services of the University. He is, however, not in a position to say as to whether that restraint order passed by the Chancellor still operates. In my view, whatever be the position, the direction given by the Chancellor cannot be used to frustrate the right of those employees who are in service as casual labourers for more than three years and who became entitled to regularisation of service in terms of Annx. R/1. 10. In my view, whatever be the position, the direction given by the Chancellor cannot be used to frustrate the right of those employees who are in service as casual labourers for more than three years and who became entitled to regularisation of service in terms of Annx. R/1. 10. The Apex Court has in large number of cases held that it is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary to continue an employee on daily wages for years together. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi Mining Corporation 1990(1) SCC 361 , the Apex Court gave a direction to the employer to regularise the services of those employees who have rendered 3 years service. This Court has in Lecturer Forum v. State of Rajasthan 1993(1) WLC 654 , examined the case of temporary lecturers who continuously served for over 3 years. After making reference to a large number of decided cases, the Court gave a direction for framing of a scheme to regularise the services of temporary lecturers who have served for 3 years. 11. A similar direction has been given by this Court in a more or less identical case, namely, Kayam Singh v. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3707/89, decided on 8th December, 1993 . 12. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has rendered continuous service of over 8 years and 6 months. This is near about almost1/4th of the total service career of an employee. Having allowed the petitioner to work for such a long period, though on fixed wages, the respondents are now duty bound to consider his case for regularisation of his service. It is, therefore, proper to give a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner for the purpose of regularisation of his service by taking into consideration the experience gained by him. It shall be open to the respondents to subject the petitioner to a job test/interview for the purpose of adjudging his suitability along with similarly situated persons. 13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that number of petitions are being filed in this Court involving the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner wherein daily wages employees have made claim for regularisation of service and grant of regular pay scale. He submitted that large number of irregular appointments are also being made by various authorities. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that number of petitions are being filed in this Court involving the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner wherein daily wages employees have made claim for regularisation of service and grant of regular pay scale. He submitted that large number of irregular appointments are also being made by various authorities. He submitted that appropriate directions may kindly be given by the Court. This Court in Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(3) WLC 533 and in similar cases, took note of the growing malpractice in making of appointment on daily wages in Government departments as well as by its agencies and instrumentalities. It is unfortunate that the malpractice which has found its birth in the Government departments, has taken its roots in the services of the Universities. Widespread favouritism and nepotism and corruption prevail not only in the Government departments but in the Universities as well where appointments are made on daily wages without any regard to claims of more eligible and suitable persons. The methodology of making appointment of casual employees or on daily wages or fixed salary has been found convenient by the employer. They find it easy to flout the constitutional goal of equality by making appointment on daily wages, fixed wages or on casual basis. If regular/temporary appointment is to be made, the employer is under an obligation to call the names of eligible persons from the Employment Exchange and select the best out of the available lot. Even where necessity of calling names from the Employment Exchange is dispensed with the employer is under obligation to issue advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible persons to apply and select the best out of the lot. This requirement is given a decent burial by making appointment on daily wages or on fixed salary or by appointing casual employees. In fact, hundreds of cases have come to the notice of the Court where the competent authorities have appointed their kins and kin ignoring claims of many more qualified and suitable persons. 14. Framers of the Constitution had enacted Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with the hope that in public employment, all eligible and suitable persons will have a right to compete and employer, namely, the Government, will have an opportunity to select the best out of the lot. 14. Framers of the Constitution had enacted Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with the hope that in public employment, all eligible and suitable persons will have a right to compete and employer, namely, the Government, will have an opportunity to select the best out of the lot. Some concessions have been provided by the Constitution itself for the members of the weaker Sections of the society. However, those who were assigned the task of implementing the provisions of the Constitution, have unfortunately misused the power vested in them. People have come to realise that two organs of the State, namely, the Legislature and the Executive have failed to achieve their aspirations. It is, therefore, high time that the third organ of the State, namely, the Judiciary, takes measures to put the things straight, by giving proper directions for compliance of the constitutional provisions. If the task of implementing the constitutional provisions is of the Legislature; if the task of framing policies is of the Legislature and the Executive is required to implement these policies; there is no reason why this third organ of the State should fail to play its role in fulfilment of the constitutional goal set up in the statute and preamble of the Constitution. This is the reason why this Court and the Apex Court in large number of cases have given direction for giving effect to the constitutional provisions. This exercise by the Court has been construed by some as judicial activism but they forget that Courts are as much accountable for the people of this country as are the Legislature and the Bureaucracy. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The claim of the petitioner for issue of a direction for appointment on the post of Pump Operator/Assistant Mechanic is rejected. However, the University is directed to consider case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons for adjudging their suitability for regularisation of their services on the post of Mistry (Electrical) and other contemporaneous posts, on which persons are working on casual basis or on fixed wages or on daily wages and who have rendered continuous service of 3 years, or more. For adjudging suitability of such persons, the respondent-University and its functionaries shall take into consideration the length of service of such persons, their qualification and experience. For adjudging suitability of such persons, the respondent-University and its functionaries shall take into consideration the length of service of such persons, their qualification and experience. It is made clear that this exercise shall be confined to persons who are in services of the respondent-University and not to those persons who are engaged on research projects. Necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed and implemented within 4 months from today. 16. Following further directions are given to the respondent-University for making future appointments : (1) Against the vacant posts, which may be available or which may become available, the respondent-University shall make appointments only after calling names from the concerned Employment Exchange. If the requirement of calling names from the Employment Exchange, is or has been dispensed with under any statute, the post should be advertised by the University and candidature of all eligible persons should be considered on their merit. (2) If any appointment is made on any vacant post by any functionary of the University without following the aforesaid procedure, salary payable to a person appointed in this manner shall be recovered from the pay of that officer. (3) In case of emergency and in relation to research projects, the respondent-University may engage eligible and suitable persons on contract basis with a clear stipulation that such contractual engagement will not confer any right to seek regularisation of employment under services of the University. (4) Emergent contractual appointments on vacant posts should not be made for more than 3 months. If emergency persists, the competent authority may continue the appointment for a maximum of 6 months. In that event, approval of the Vice Chancellor or head of the Department shall be necessary. This condition shall not apply for research projects. 17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Orders accordingly. *******