JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal arises out of an order dated May 26, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondents was allowed and it was held that the writ petitioners who are part-time teachers are entitled to salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of regularly appointed lecturers of the University from the date of filing the Writ Petition. The University has come in Appeal laying challenge to this order. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Special Appeal is proposed to be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 3. The facts as projected by the writ petitioners are that all of them are Post Graduate Degree holders in M.Sc. (Zoology) and petitioners No. 1 and 3 hold the degree of M.Phil., and the other petitioners hold degree of doctorate. They are, thus, according to the pleadings fulfil all the requisite qualifications for being eligible to be appointed as lecturers in their respective services. 4. On 29th June, 1993, applications were invited for appointment of part-time teachers on period basis at the rate of Rs. 40/-per period of 45 minutes duration and this advertisement has been placed as Annex.1. The petitioners, all of them, were interviewed by the selection committee and vide order dated 6th September, 1993 (Annex. 3) they were appointed as teachers on part-time basis. 5. That vide Annex. 4 dated 18th May, 1994 remuneration was enhanced to Rs. 50/- and the time of period was also enhanced from 45 minutes to 55. Thus, the petitioners were asked to share extra work load in addition to their normal routine. 6. Vide communication dated 19th July, 1994 all Heads of the Departments of the University were told that those part-time teachers who were appointed by the selection committee may be engaged during current session 1994-95 in case their work was satisfactory. It was further stipulated that the teachers would be allotted work load but not more than 21 periods per week. This communication is Annex. 6 and is dated 19th July, 1994. The petitioners have also placed on record time table for the session 1994-95 wherein the allotment of work has been made covering 21 periods with the timings commence from 8.15 A.M. to 5.15 P.M., Annex.8. 7. This communication is Annex. 6 and is dated 19th July, 1994. The petitioners have also placed on record time table for the session 1994-95 wherein the allotment of work has been made covering 21 periods with the timings commence from 8.15 A.M. to 5.15 P.M., Annex.8. 7. It is pleaded by the petitioners that as per norms of the University regularly selected lecturers are also supposed to take 21 periods in a week. The petitioners have been discharging their duties efficiently and according to them they have to prepare lessons like regularly selected teachers and have to keep themselves equipped with up-to-date knowledge and information of their concerned subjects when ever they have to deliver lectures to students. Their job also includes to check the records of the students and assess it. The nature of job is such that they cannot take up any other work or make earnings in any other way even if there is gap of sometime between the two periods. Though technically styled as part-time teachers they have to work like whole time ones. 8. The petitioners apprehended that there may be a confrontation between them and the University and they may be victimised by terminating their services or reducing 21 periods which had been assigned to them. An advertisement was admittedly issued by the University on 12th September, 1994, possibly due to the increased work load in the University. Applications were invited for selection of part-time teachers. This advertisement has been placed as Annex. 9. 9. In short, what the petitioners have sought by way of the Writ Petition is that for all intents and purposes their appointments is a full time job like other regularly appointed teachers and nomenclature of part-time teachers has been given only to justify lesser payment than what is admissible and a sort of device has been made to deprive them from claiming due payment and they are discharging the same duties as are being discharged by their regularly appointed counter parts or even those who are appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis. They have come to be appointed in open competition and by due selection. They have come to be appointed in open competition and by due selection. They cannot, thus, be discriminated against and the attitude of the University violates Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India where the principles of equal pay for equal work is enshrined and denial of these emoluments on the part of the University is violative of the principles laid down in the Constitution of India including Article 23. 10. In the reply filed on behalf of the University it has been stated that the appointments of the writ petitioners were made on part-time period basis only and not on the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer). It was further said that the deputation of these petitioners for performing invigilation duties etc. would not clothe them with the status of the teachers who are in the category of regularly appointed teachers and the appointments were made purely on ad hoc basis to cope up with the work load and it was under the discretion of the University to allot 21 period per week but that was not similar in all cases. 11. It was further said that it was not obligatory that the teachers who were appointed could not take any other work nor they were stopped from earning in any other manner. 12. It is further said in the reply that there was a set procedure for appointment of regular teachers and their selections are made by the statutory selection authority as per vacancies provided under the budget provision and the part-time teachers do not come under the said procedure and could not thus be treated at par with the regularly appointed teachers. 13. There is a very important document which has been placed on record as Annex. 10, which is a notification dated 21st December, 1994. This appears to have been brought on the scene in view of the situation that has arisen out of the filing of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed on 19.9.1994. It appears that the University noted that there was some mistake on their part in allotting 21 periods per week to the part-time teachers, i.e. the petitioners and by this notification it was said that as per norms applied for existing Asstt. The Writ Petition was filed on 19.9.1994. It appears that the University noted that there was some mistake on their part in allotting 21 periods per week to the part-time teachers, i.e. the petitioners and by this notification it was said that as per norms applied for existing Asstt. Professors they can take 21 periods per week and, therefore, the part-time teachers are required to be allotted less than 21 periods per week and not equal to the norms for existing teachers. This document, thus, fully supports the plea raised by the petitioners that they were doing the same job and delivering 21 periods a week which are the normal duties of the regularly appointed teachers and since they were doing the same job, they were entitled to same emoluments. 14. The learned Single Judge after perusing the pleadings and documents placed on record on behalf of the parties allowed the Writ Petition and it was declared that the writ petitioners were entitled to the same salary as equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of regularly appointed teachers of the University and this relief was allowed from the date of the filing of the Writ Petition. 15. Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the impugned order has argued that the learned Single Judge had gone wrong in equating the respondents with that of regularly appointed teachers on the principal of equal pay for equal work. The learned counsel submits that it is the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 and ordinances which govern the matters of the University and the University had the power to engage part-time lecturers on period basis. This procedure was not only beneficial to the University but also to the part-time teachers who are engaged for the purpose. The learned counsel submits that those regularly appointed teachers have expertise and specialised services and the part-time lecturers could not be equated with their status. Such part-time teachers are never in the service of the University and no rules or regulations are binding on them. According to the learned counsel the respondents willingly accepted the engagement which was devoid of any statutory or contractual obligation and it was settled that they would be paid this much of amount per period. Such part-time teachers are never in the service of the University and no rules or regulations are binding on them. According to the learned counsel the respondents willingly accepted the engagement which was devoid of any statutory or contractual obligation and it was settled that they would be paid this much of amount per period. This has been admitted in the written statement that there is a work load in the departments of the University and this type of engagement is made to meet such situations. 16. It has been further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that a decision has now been taken not to allot more than 20 periods to such part-time lecturers who are engaged on period basis. It is next contended that those teachers who are on regular basis have also to perform administrative functions and the job of a part-time lecturer was totally a different concept and has nothing to do with the appointments of the teachers by the University under the Act. 17. On a question put by us as to what type of engagement is this, the learned counsel has stated that it is neither a contract nor a statutory appointment nor a regular appointment under the rules. It is further said that it is not even a temporary or ad hoc appointment. Since all these appointments are provided under 1974 Rules and method of recruitment is prescribed in the Act. 18. The learned counsel has pressed in service the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Private College Stop-gap lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others, 1992(1) SCT 599(SC) : AIR 1992 SC 677 , and Union of India and others etc. v. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. and another, 1995(2) SCT 473(SC) : 1995 (2) SLR 108. 19. Mr. M. Muridul, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has replied that before the appointments was offered an affidavit was sought from the petitioners that they were not engaged in any other job. Our attention has been invited particularly to Annexs. 2 and 4. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn our attention to paras 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex. Our attention has been invited particularly to Annexs. 2 and 4. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn our attention to paras 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex. which deal with the bills for remuneration and while forwarding these bills for payment a certificate is to be appended to the effect that the teachers concerned have taken classes in addition to their normal work load. It is further stipulated that extrat classes which are taken to cover up the normal course will not be paid. Our attention has also been drawn to Annex. 5 wherein it has been stipulated that as a primary duty of a teacher he should also perform examination duty and one of the petitioners had been asked to perform the invigilation duty and was asked to report at the desired Centre. 21. The learned counsel vehemently argues that what prevailed the University to fix the number of periods as 21 per week and what prompted the University to reduce the same by asking the Heads of the Departments that the part-time teachers should be given period less than 21 a week. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has invited our attention to Annx. R/1. This is dated 19th July, 1994 and therein it was said that those teachers who had rendered the jobs satisfactorily well during the last session may be engaged for the session 1994-95. This would mean that the petitioners have been performing their duties satisfactorily. Annx. R/1A has been pressed in service to show that there exist number of vacancies in the University. In Annex. R/2 the requirement of item No. 2 is "Whether you are already working anywhere." It further records that on getting the above information necessary steps will be taken regarding the appointment as Assistant Professor, Part-time (period basis) as per the University Rules. 23. The counsel for the respondents further pressed the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2049 , Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 1986 SC 180 : 1986 R.R.R. 290, State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, 1992(1) SCT 538(SC) : (1992) 1 SCC 489 , and Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 SCC (L & S) 269. We have gone through these decisions and some of the decisions have already been noticed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Vijay Kumar's case (supra) is directly on the point and the following observations may usefully be quoted here : "On these facts, it can hardly be disputed that on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the respondent-State has to pay to the appellants the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post, the duties of which they are discharging during the period their employment as part-time lecturers subsists." The case law cited by Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner is directly on the point and the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not even remotely attracted for the proposition in hand. 24. From what has been out above it comes said that undisputedly there appears to be a work load in the University and the procedure that is employed for selecting teachers on regular basis consumes considerable time and thus arrangements have to be made to make such type of arrangement so that the classes continue and the students are not made to suffer and regular classes which are run by the University just cannot be closed. It was with this view that the respondents, i.e., the writ petitioners came to be employed as part-time lecturers on period basis. This looks rather strange when we compare the work that these teachers are putting with the work which the regularly appointed teachers render. The job which the writ petitioners are performing is more challenging and testing than those who have specialisation and have further spent long inning in the University in teaching their specialised subjects. These teachers have possibly to work more hard to keep themselves perfect in up-to-date knowledge and prepare themselves to deliver lectures to the students in the classes. The teachers play a very important role in the building of the Nation today. We are facing an age of cut-throat competition and the University has chosen a novel method in getting the services of the teachers at cheaper rates, i.e., on period bases. These teachers are not performing any manual work nor are engaged in the construction activity where they have to be paid as per work done. We are facing an age of cut-throat competition and the University has chosen a novel method in getting the services of the teachers at cheaper rates, i.e., on period bases. These teachers are not performing any manual work nor are engaged in the construction activity where they have to be paid as per work done. They form a class of intelligentsia and a respectable status is required to be given to them by the University. We cannot refrain from observing that engagement of this kind by the University is simply an exploitation. We expect much higher standard from the University. We also see that some of the petitioners have been doing other jobs also which were assigned to them such as invigilation duty and holding of the examination. 25. We are in full agreement with the observations and reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that Article 39(d) of the Constitution has been raised to the status of fundamentals right inasmuch as violation of the directive principles of the State Policy violates Articles 14 and 16. Admittedly due to shortage of regular teachers a sort of interim arrangement was made for imparting education. The job of a teacher cannot be equated with that of manual labour since it is a dignified job carrying a status in the society. If the University is taking work from these part-time teachers in almost the same manner like regularly appointed teachers then there is hardly any basis for paying a lesser amount to them only because they are termed as part-time teachers engaged on period basis. The Writ Petition has, thus, been rightly allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. 26. We, thus, uphold the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and as a consequence this Special Appeal is ordered to be dismissed.Costs are made easy.Appeal dismissed. *******