JUDGMENT 1. - This bunch of Writ Petitions involving identical question of law and facts are being decided jointly by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners herein are University Teachers (Lecturers) and were appointed as Lecturers in different subjects and specialities purely on casual and ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement to impart lectures in under-graduate classes for want of regularly appointed Lecturers. They are being paid only an honorarium on lecture basis. In fact, gross delay in making regular appointments of Lecturers by the respondent University and large scale un-employment amongst the literate persons and their pursuit for better and secured service conditions is the root cause of present litigation. Most of the petitioners have the highest academic qualifications in the respective subjects and their grievance is that they have been forced to accept even casual employment on terms unilaterally dictated or fixed by the University. According to their case, they have requisite qualifications of being appointed substantively, but still the University was adopting an arbitrary and exploitative approach in making payment of salary/remuneration to them. The plea that the hire and fire rule should not be allowed to govern their service conditions at the whims of the University and payment of their remuneration as per lecture basis is obnoxious and against dignity of the profession. In short, their contentions are based on humanitarian considerations, dignity of profession and the principle of equal pay for equal work. 3. As informed, ever since 1989, no selections have been made by the University of Rajasthan for the purpose of making substantive appointment on vacant posts of Lecturers. In absence of regular appointments, as a stop-gap temporary arrangement ad hoc appointments are intended to tide over the exigencies, so that students may not suffer in their studies, but, such appointments should not be allowed for long periods of time. Teaching profession, specially teaching to higher classes is a challenging and testing job which needs concentration and deep study in the subject. A casual or temporary appointment, lacking job security and emoluments as per expectations, can hardly create enthusiasm and requisitie devotion for the work. Hence, the practice of ad hocism in appointments has been deprecated more than once by this Court as well as the Apex Court of the country in various decisions. 4. A casual or temporary appointment, lacking job security and emoluments as per expectations, can hardly create enthusiasm and requisitie devotion for the work. Hence, the practice of ad hocism in appointments has been deprecated more than once by this Court as well as the Apex Court of the country in various decisions. 4. To meet extra teaching workload, in absence of regular appointments, a stop gap arrangement was evolved by the University, whereby eligible persons were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the academic session and were continued in service upto the end of the academic session and thereafter, their services were terminated in order to save the University from the liability of paying salary for the vacation period. 5. In 1994, the respondent University evolved a new policy for permitting University's Departments/Principals of the Constituent Colleges to engage services of the retired Teachers/Ph. D. Holders/Research Scholars for taking classes to cover the uncovered workload on honorarium basis and they were required to adhere to the following criteria while sending the panel of persons for approval for the session 1994-95 : "1. The uncovered workload, as approved by the Workload Committee for the session 1993-94 will be covered by engaging persons in order of the following preferences : (i) Retired teachers of the University, (i.e. UOR) (ii) Ph.D. holders of this University who have taught at the Constituent Colleges and Departments earlier. (iii) Ph.D. holders of the University who have obtained degree by doing research in any of the Departments of this University. (iv) Research Scholars working in the University Departments and attached to Rajasthan University teaching Departments. 2. Research Scholar should be considered only when the Ph.D. holders are not available. 3. The retired teachers and Ph.D. holders will be paid Rs. 75/- per period basis upto a ceiling of Rs. 4000/- per month and at least two periods per day will be assigned. The Research Scholars will be paid Rs. 40/- per period upto the ceiling of Rs. 2200/- per month and minimum two periods per day will be assigned." 6. For the session 1995-96, a slight change was made in the policy for covering uncovered workload. The following preferences for engaging persons were laid down : "1. The Research Scholars will be paid Rs. 40/- per period upto the ceiling of Rs. 2200/- per month and minimum two periods per day will be assigned." 6. For the session 1995-96, a slight change was made in the policy for covering uncovered workload. The following preferences for engaging persons were laid down : "1. The uncovered workload, as approved by the Workload Committee for the session 1995-96 will be covered by engaging persons in order of the following preferences and the Head of the Department will ensure the same : (i) Retired teachers of the University. (i.e. UOR) (ii) Ph.D. holders of the University who have obtained degree by doing research in any of the Departments of this University. (iii) Research Scholars working in the University Departments and attached to Rajasthan University teaching Departments either NET qualified or having minimum two years research experience. (iv) Retired teachers of the affiliated colleges of the Universities in the State of Rajasthan. 2. Research Scholar should be considered only when the Ph.D. holders are not available. 3. The retired teachers and Ph.D. holders will be paid @ Rs. 75/- per period basis upto a ceiling of Rs. 4000/- per month and at least two period per day will be assigned. The Research Scholars will be paid Rs. 40/- per period upto the ceiling of Rs. 2200/- per month and minimum two periods per day will be assigned." 7. The stand of the University is that the petitioners were/are not regularly appointed Lecturers under the provisions of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and their appointments are purely on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement to ensure that the teaching of the students may not suffer. They wilfully and voluntarily agreed to work as per the terms and conditions which were made known to them before accepting assignment, as such, they cannot be now permitted to put any grievance against those terms and conditions of their temporary assignment. In the alternative, it was candidly submitted that proper guidelines may be issued by this Court in the facts and circumstances and the same shall be followed by the University. 8. In the alternative, it was candidly submitted that proper guidelines may be issued by this Court in the facts and circumstances and the same shall be followed by the University. 8. It is not disputed before me that the mode of appointment in respect of Lecturers of the University and its constituent Colleges as provided under the Act of 1974 is by direct recruitment through the R.P.S.C. only. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim regularisation and this position has not been disputed before me. The only question that requires consideration, therefore is as to what relief can be given to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances ? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, have disputed before me that minimum academic qualifications for a Lecturer in each subject have been prescribed by the University Grant Commission (U.G.C.) and the same has been adopted by the respondent University by making necessary amendments in the Ordinance and Regulations of the University. No person is eligible to be appointed as Lecturer unless he possess the minimum prescribed academic qualifications. He cannot be appointed even on ad hoc basis. 10. In background of the above factual and legal aspects, extensive arguments were made by the learned counsel on both the sides as to what relief may be given to the petitioners by giving general guidelines in the facts and circumstances. Learned counsel put their case aptly and skilfully to get a better deal in favour of their respective parties. On some points, there were divergent view even amongst the lawyers appearing for the petitioners, obviously to safeguard the interest of their clients. During the course of arguments, some Lawyers appearing for the petitioners expressed unfounded apprehension that the University shall not properly determine the uncovered teaching workload for the session 1996-97 and this exercise would be undertaken by this Court. After all, the respondent University is an autonomous public body and any such misplaced apprehension deserves to be rejected outright. 11. In Narendra Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4601/94 decided on May 26, 1995 , a similar question was raised before a learned Single Judge at the principal seat of the High Court. Part time Lecturers were engaged by the University on remuneration per period basis to cover up extra teaching workload. In Narendra Singh and others Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4601/94 decided on May 26, 1995 , a similar question was raised before a learned Single Judge at the principal seat of the High Court. Part time Lecturers were engaged by the University on remuneration per period basis to cover up extra teaching workload. It was held by this Court that appointment of Lecturers as part time on remuneration of per period basis was not justified and they were entitled to get salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of regularly appointed Lecturer. This judgment was challenged before the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 539/95 but without any success as the appeal was dismissed on 19th July, 1995, 1995(2) RLR 316 . The Division Bench observed as under : "These teachers have possibly to work more hard to keep themselves perfect in upto date knowledge and prepare themselves to deliver lecturers 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 basis. 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 lass 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." 12. In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 295/95 Dr. D.C. Dudi v. University of Rajasthan, 1996(1) RLR 560 , a similar question was involved relating to appointment of Lecturers on payment of remuneration as per Lecture basis. The Bench held that Lecturers were entitled to get salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the regularly appointed Lecturer from the date of judgment i.e. 1st March, 1996. 13. The Bench held that Lecturers were entitled to get salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of the regularly appointed Lecturer from the date of judgment i.e. 1st March, 1996. 13. In Irfan Mehar & others v. State of Rajasthan and another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 530/96 and other similar writ petitions decided on 19th April, 1996, after taking into consideration, the judgment delivered in Narendra Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench held as under : (i) Such persons who were in employment of the University for two or more academic sessions from a different class which can, in the given circumstances, be called similar to the petitioners in Narendra Singh's case. Hence, it would not be out of place to direct that the University will continue them till regular appointments are made as the University by continuing them in service for two or more than two academic sessions created in them a reasonable expectancy that they will be continued in employment of the University till regularly selected candidates are available and that such expectancy cannot be called illegal. (ii) Other persons who completed less than two academic sessions with the University, they by themselves from a different class. In their case, it cannot be said that any legitimate expectancy existed in their being continued till regular selections are made. They are not comparable to the teachers covered by Narendra Singh's case. Their appointment, therefore, will come to an end as per the contract of service of order of appointment or order of continuance as the case may be and they shall not be entitled to continue by reason of this order till the regularly selected persons are available. 14. In Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 677 , applying the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in the case of ad hoc teachers, it was observed as under:- "Another obnoxious part is the emoluments that have been paid to the temporary teachers. The order provides that the teacher shall be paid a fixed salary which is ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular employee. This method of payment is again beyond comprehension. The order provides that the teacher shall be paid a fixed salary which is ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular employee. This method of payment is again beyond comprehension. An appointment may be temporary or permanent, but the nature of work being same and the temporary appointment may be due to exigency of service, non-availability of permanent vacancy or as stop-gap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, yet there can be no justification for paying a teacher, so appointed, a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment than a regular teacher. Fixation of such emolumnets is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The evil inherent in it is that apart from the teachers being at the beck and call of the management are in danger of being exploited as has been done by the management committees of State of Karnataka who have utilised the services of the teachers for 8 to 10 years by paying a meagre salary whem probably during this period if they would have been paid according to the salary payable to a regular teacher they would have been getting much more. Payment of nearly eight months' salary, by resorting to clause 5 and that too fixed amount, for the same job which is performed by regular teachers is unfair and unjust." 15. In Vijay Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 255 , applying the principle of equal pay for equal work for part time Lecturers, direction was given to pay minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post. 16. Learned counsel for the University drew my attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge in Dr. Ram Narain's case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1388/96) decided on 23.5.96 reported in 1996(1) RLR 564 where by the prayer of the Lecturers for grant of minimum of the pay scale was declined. This matter need not be examined further in view of the decisions referred to above delivered by Division Bench of this Court. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners are : regularisation on the post of Lecturers; payment of salary equivalent to that of regularly appointed Lecturers and continuation of service till regular appointments are made. This matter need not be examined further in view of the decisions referred to above delivered by Division Bench of this Court. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners are : regularisation on the post of Lecturers; payment of salary equivalent to that of regularly appointed Lecturers and continuation of service till regular appointments are made. As stated earlier, prayer of regularisation cannot be accepted in view of the provisions and the method of selection provided in the Act of 1974. From the record it is borne out that appointments of the Lecturers on ad hoc basis were made for that academic session 1995-96, which ended in the month of March, 1996. 17. In back-drop of the factual and legal aspects as aforesaid, after careful and deep consideration of the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to minimise further litigation, I think it just and proper to decide the writ petitions in the following terms : 1. The respondent University shall get the uncovered teaching workload of the departments (subject-wise) assessed/determined for the academic session 1996-97 through the Workload Committees if the same has not been done as yet. This exercise shall be completed within two weeks from today. 2. (i) Such petitioners and other similarly circumstances Lecturers, who possess the requisite academic qualifications as prescribed by the University Grants Commission and approved by the respondent University and have served for two or more academic sessions, whall have the first preference to get appointment for the academic session 1996-97. Their appointment shall continue till regular selections are made by the University. They shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed Lecturers. Such Lecturers who were in employment of the University in the last academic session ending in March, 1996, shall be treated to be in continuous service without any break and they shall be paid minimum of the pay scale from 1st March, 1996 to be in parity with the decision in Dr. D.C. Dudi's case. Such Lecturers who have served for two or more academic sessions, but were not in employment in the last academic session, shall be given fresh appointment and they shall be entitled to get the salary from the date of their appointment. D.C. Dudi's case. Such Lecturers who have served for two or more academic sessions, but were not in employment in the last academic session, shall be given fresh appointment and they shall be entitled to get the salary from the date of their appointment. The University/constituent Colleges shall be entitled to assign them the same number of period per week as is assigned to a regularly appointed Lecturer as per the Ordinance/Regulations of the University. The Lecturers accepting the assignment will have to submit an undertaking that he/she is not employed at any other place out of the University. (ii) That the petitioners (Lecturers) and other similarly situated persons having a term of service for a period less than two academic sessions, shall have a second preference subject to the availability of teaching work load after adjusting those Lecturers who had served for two or more academic sessions with the University. In other words, they will have no right to be appointed or to continue in service if no uncovered workload is available in their respective subjects. If uncovered teaching workload is available in the subject/ subjects then, such person who had taught in the last academic session, shall have preference in appointment/continuing in service and they shall also be paid minimum of the pay scale and deemed to be in continuous service from the last academic session. Such Lecturers shall also be entitled to get minimum of regular pays scale from 1st March, 1996. After adjusting such Lecturers, if any uncovered teaching workload is available in any subject or subjects, fresh appointments shall be made amongst those Lecturers who had earlier served in the University. All such appointees shall be entitled to get the minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment.Note : Ph.D. holders and Research Scholars shall be treated at par in making appointments, but in case of a Research Scholar, if he accepts the assignment, he will have to forgo scholarship for the period he remains in service as Lecturer on minimum of the pay scale. 3. After above adjustments, still if there remain uncovered teaching workload in any subject, the University shall be free to engage retired teachers of the University i.e. of the University of Rajasthan, having requisite academic qualifications on such terms an conditions to be decided by the University, including payment of remuneration as per period basis. 3. After above adjustments, still if there remain uncovered teaching workload in any subject, the University shall be free to engage retired teachers of the University i.e. of the University of Rajasthan, having requisite academic qualifications on such terms an conditions to be decided by the University, including payment of remuneration as per period basis. The retired teachers have already played their innings and they should feel that their service was being taken to take benefit of their experience for the benefit of the students as a social work. 4. Having trapped all the above resources, if person having requisite academic qualification is not available in any subject, the University shall be free to engage any person having lesser qualification on such terms and conditions to be specified by the University, including payment of remuneration as per period basis. 18. To resolve the dispute that may be raised by any person for non-consideration of his candidature in light of the above directions, the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall appoint a committee consisting of three responsible persons. The candidate will have to produce the requisite information/documents in support of his grievance before the said Committee. The decision given by the Committee shall be implemented by the respondent University. 19. The matter is not over as yet. As noted earlier, regular selections of Lecturers have not been made by the respondent University since 1989, and this situation cannot be appreciated in any manner. This unnecessary litigation could have been avoided if the concerned authority had been vigilant to make regular appointments. Otherwise also, to safeguard interest of the students and for proper functioning, it is essential that vacancies of teaching staff are filled in timely by regular selection than to depend on a stop gap arrangement. It also appears that the University has not commenced the selection process. Hence, I give a firm and positive direction to the respondent University to make regular selection in respect of sanctioned posts of Lecturers as early as possible but in no case later than 15th March, 1997 positively. The selection process may be commenced within a fortnight. 20. All the Petitions are decided as indicated above. No order as to costs.Petitions disposed of with directions. *******