JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 9.1.97 passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions; quashed the order Annexure 6 qua the petitioners and held that the petitioners, who had completed two years or more academic sessions, they could not have been removed from the service vide Annexure 6 till the regular selections are made. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant university that (i) in the departments where the sanctioned posts were available, the interviews were held and appointments have been made; but in the case of the respondents (petitioners in the writ petitions) the sanctioned posts were not available and, therefore, they were not allowed to continue as in such circumstances no direction was given; (ii) regular selection cannot be held till the posts are sanctioned, for which the recommendations have been made by the University which are under consideration before the Government; (iii) no direction like direction No. 2 in the judgment in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case with respect to non-budget/non-sanctioned post can be given; and (iv) the direction No. 2 which was given on the basis of Narendra Singh's case has been explained by the Supreme Court and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 190/896 (J.N.V. University v. Narendra Singh Rathore ). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and submitted that (i) the order terminating the services of the respondents (writ petitioners) passed by the University was wholly without jurisdiction; (ii) it has been passed in flagrant violation of the directions given in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case; (iii) it is discriminatory as the other persons have been retained while the services of the respondents have been dispensed with; (iv) the posts are available in the departments and even the work-load is there but still the services of the respondents have been dispensed with; and (v) the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Narendra Singh Rathore's case is sub-silentio as it has not considered and decided the question and is also per incurium. 4. 4. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it necessary to state the facts of the case which gave rise to the present controversy. 5. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 134/97, viz., Shishupal Singh, Dr. Om Prakash and Pradeep were working as the Assistant Professors in the Department of Business Administration while respondent No. 4 Dr. Narendra was working as the Assistant Professor in Accounting Department. Dr. (Smt.) Ranka Srivastava (respondent in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 359/97) was working as the Assistant Professor in the Department of Home Science and Dr. Yogesh Kumar, Dr. Kharta Ram Patel and Dr. Beena Tripathi (respondent in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 362/1997) were working in the Physics and Geology Departments. The services of these respondents, along with other Assistant Professors numbering 56, were sought to be terminated by the University as their appointments were ad hoc appointments and for a fixed term. These 56 persons, whose services were sought to be terminated, filed writ petitions challenging the order of their proposed termination. Five writ petitions (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 530/96, Dr. Ifran Mehar v. State of Rajasthan ; and D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 777/96, 647/96, 821/96 and 866/96) filed by the 56 petitioners including the present respondents (writ petitioners) were allowed with certain directions by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.4.96. After the judgment in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case, the University proceeded with the selection in pursuance to the advertisement already issued on 24.4.95 and held selection for the posts advertised by this advertisement. The persons selected in this selection process were given appointments in pursuance to the resolution of the Syndicate dated 27.7.96. No advertisement was issued with respect to the Departments of Business Administration and Accounting as according to the University, no sanctioned posts were available in these departments and, therefore, the services of the respondents were terminated vide order dated 27.7.96. By this order Annexure-6, the services of forty-six persons (including the respondents in all the three appeals) were terminated and, therefore, they filed the writ petitions which stand allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 21st January, 1997. 6. By this order Annexure-6, the services of forty-six persons (including the respondents in all the three appeals) were terminated and, therefore, they filed the writ petitions which stand allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 21st January, 1997. 6. In the writ petitions, it was prayed that the order dated 27.7.96, by which the services of the petitioners were terminated, be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioners in service till regularly selected candidates are appointed who replace them as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19.4.96. 7. The question, which, therefore requires consideration is: whether in view of the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case, the respondents (writ petitioners) are entitled to continue in the service till the regularly selected candidates are made available ? The answer to the question, therefore, depends upon the interpretation of the direction given by the Division Bench in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case. 8. The Division Bench of this Court, in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case, without expressing any opinion on the merit, thought it just and proper to direct, in the peculiar circumstances of that case that certain petitioners who are in the employment of the University for two or more academic sessions, thus, form a different class which, in the given circumstances, be called similar to the petitioners in Narendra Singh's case. Relying upon the judgment and the direction given in Narendra Singh's case, the Division Bench gave the following direction:- "(1) the prevailing system of ad hocism in appointments stands deprecated and we mandate upon the University to make regular appointments in respect of the sanctioned posts by August 31, 1996 positively. The selection process may be commenced within a fortnight hereof. (2) In respect of such petitioners who have their continuous appointments for two or more academic sessions, we direct that till regular selection takes place by the University, their appointments should continue as before. The selection process may be commenced within a fortnight hereof. (2) In respect of such petitioners who have their continuous appointments for two or more academic sessions, we direct that till regular selection takes place by the University, their appointments should continue as before. (3) With regard to such posts which have as yet not been sanctioned by the State Government, the University after assessment of the work-load, would write to the State Government for appropriate and due sanction by the State Government authorities and as and when such sanction is obtained, the University would make the appointments in accordance with law by way of regular selection. (4) With regard to such of the petitioners who have a term of service for a period less than two academic sessions, we think that no case of legitimate expectance has been established in their case, but then we may direct the University, pending final and regular selection, to consider making fresh appointments for the time being, amongst them, if the situation so demands, conforming to the statutory provisions of Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974 as it stands amended today." By direction No. 1, the Division Bench directed the University to make regular appointments in respect of sanctioned posts. This direction has been complied with and the appointments in the Departments where the sanctioned posts were available, have been made. Direction No. 3 deals with the post which was not sanctioned by the State Government. The direction was given by the Division Bench to assess the work-load and write to the State Government for appropriate and due sanction of these posts and as and when such sanction is obtained, the University will make the appointment in accordance with law by way of regular selection. This direction has also been complied with by the University and after assessing the work-load, recommendation has been made by the University to the State Government for sanction of the additional posts and the matter is pending before the State Government. This direction has also been complied with by the University and after assessing the work-load, recommendation has been made by the University to the State Government for sanction of the additional posts and the matter is pending before the State Government. Direction No. 4 relates to those petitioners whose term of service was less than two academic sessions and, therefore, the Division Bench held that no case of legitimate expectancy has been established in their case but, however, directed the University that pending final and regular selection to consider making fresh appointment for the time-being, amongst them, if the situation so demands. 9. There is no dispute so far as these directions No. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned. The dispute relates only with respect to the Direction No. 2 which provides that the petitioners who have their continuous appointment for two or more academic sessions, may be allowed to continue till regular selections take place by the University. Whether this Direction No. 2 applies to the sanctioned post or even to the posts which are non-sanctioned posts ? The judgment in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case was based on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in J.N.V. University, Jodhpur v. Narendra Singh Rathore (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 537/95 decided on 19.7.95) in which the similar directions were given. The judgment in Narendra Singh's case, in which the S.L.P. was filed by the J.N.V. University, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 190/96 (J.N.V. University, Jodhpur v. Narendra Singh Rathore ). The direction given in Narendra Singh's case, which was under consideration of the Supreme Court reads as under:- "The respondents are, also, directed to initiate and complete the process of determining and filling the regular vacancies on the post of Lecturer and till such time the regularly appointed lecturers are not available, the petitioners shall be entitled to continue without break, subject to satisfactorily discharging their duties." While interpreting the direction, the Supreme Court observed as under:- "The submission of Shri Gupta is that such a direction could only be given in respect of the respondents who were working against the sanctioned posts in the Department concerned, namely, the department of Geology and the direction could not be given for continuing in employment the teachers in excess of the number of the sanctioned posts. In our opinion, the said direction has to be read to mean that the respondents appointed against the sanctioned posts in the Department would be entitled to continue without break till regularly appointed Lecturers are not available. If the number of the Lecturers at present employed is in excess of the number of the sanctioned posts and it becomes necessary to terminate the service of any person, the petitioner shall follow the principle of 'last come first go'." 10. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case is based upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narendra Singh's case. The directions given in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case as well as in Narendra Singh's case are similar. The direction in Narendra Singh's case stands explained and interpreted by the Supreme Court which is also, applicable to the present controversy. Only those persons who were working against the sanctioned/budgetary posts were directed to be continued in the service till the regularly selected candidates are available but no such direction was given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Professors working in the Department concerned against the non- sanctioned posts. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the posts of Professors and Associate Professors are available in the Department of Business Management and one post of Assistant Professor is also, available against the leave vacancy and, therefore, their services cannot be terminated as the sanctioned posts are available in the Department concerned. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is bereft of any substance as on the post of Professor or Associate Professor, no appointment can be made as per the Rules of the University on ad hoc basis and the petitioners, who are Assistant Professors, cannot be allowed to continue against those posts. They, also, cannot be allowed to continue against the Leave Vacancy as the appointments of the respondents were not against the sanctioned posts. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh's case explains the condition and, therefore, it cannot be said as a judgment in sub silentio nor can it be said to be a judgment as per incurium. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, bereft of any substance. 11. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh's case explains the condition and, therefore, it cannot be said as a judgment in sub silentio nor can it be said to be a judgment as per incurium. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, bereft of any substance. 11. Now, coming to the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 359/97 (J.N.V. University, Jodhpur v. Dr. Ranka Srivastava) and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 362/97 (J.N.V. University, Jodhpur v. Dr. Yogesh Kumar) it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the University that in these Departments i.e., the Departments of Home Science, Physics and Geology, the sanctioned/budgetary posts are available. The cases of these respondents in these two appeals are, therefore, covered by the Direction No. 2. These two appeals, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 12. In the result, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 134/1997 filed by the University is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge qua these writ petitioners is quashed and set aside. However, we do not find any merit in D.B. Civil Special Appeals Nos. 359/1997 and 362/1997 and the same are hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Order accordingly. *******