Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-The only question involved in the present revision petition is a primary question for the interpretation in the suit as well filed by the plaintiff as to what does the definition of “Teacher” means the parties have agreed on 12-1-1998 before this Court that this Court in the present revision petition may decide the controversy in regard to the definition/interpretation of the “Teacher” as defined under the Rajasthan University Act and in such situation the parties shall be bound by such a decision in the civil suit as well i.e. the civil suit shall stand decided in view of the decision of this revision petition. The following order was passed on 12-1-1998 “The parties agreed that matter in controversy involved on legal interpretation of definition of a teacher as defined under Rajasthan University Act and in view of the admitted fact this Court may decide the matter finally, which shall be binding on parties in civil suit as well. The arguments have been heard in part to come up for remaining arguments tomorrow.” 2. Factsleading to the present revision petition filed by the Vice-Chancellor and the University of Rajasthan are that the plaintiff had filed the suit challenging the election of Senate and Syndicate to be held on 6-12-1997 and for permanent injunction praying therein that the University was bound to comply with Sections 218 and 21 of the University Act. 1946 and Statute 119 and Section 2 of the Act of 1974 with the further prayer and declaration that the plaintiff Dr. Chandra Vijay Dhabaria, now non-petitioner-plaintiff is a “Teacher” as defined under the Act and that he was entitled to vote and contest for being elected in the Senate or the Syndicate. Along with the suit the plaintiff-non-petitioner had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC praying therein that during the pendency of the suit the election of the Senate and Syndicate be stayed in regard to reserve seats of the teachers. Learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur vide its order dated 1-12-1997 had partly allowed the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and the temporary injunction was handed over in favour of the applicant and against the petitioner to the effect that the applicant cannot be restrained from voting in the election of Senate and Syndicate which was going to be held on 6-12-1997. 3. 3. Both the parties went in appeal against the aforesaid order which had come up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur. In the cross-appeal of the plaintiff it was ordered on 5-12-1997 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur city, Jaipur that the elections to be held for electing candidates from reserved constituency of teachers be not held. Aggrieved against the said order the present petitioners have filed the revision petition with the prayer that the orders be quashed. 4. Admittedly, the elections which were scheduled to be held on 6-12-1997 have not been held and a new date is to be fixed for such elections. 5. Theplaintiff in the suit had claimed himself to be teacher. It was averred by him that he was appointed vide letter dated 18-1-1997. It was averred that under Section 18 of the Rajasthan University Act, 1946, five out of 15 persons are to be elected by the teachers other than the Head of Departments etc. The elections of Senate and Syndicate were to be held as per Sections 18 and 20. It was further averred that the teacher as per Section 2( 11) means a Professor, Reader or Lecturer. The procedure as prescribed is reproduced as under: 18(1)(xxv)(a) -Fifteen persons elected by the teachers, other than Heads of University Departments, Directors, Deans, Principals from amongst themselves. It was further averred that the teacher as per Section 2( 11) means a Professor, Reader or Lecturer. The procedure as prescribed is reproduced as under: 18(1)(xxv)(a) -Fifteen persons elected by the teachers, other than Heads of University Departments, Directors, Deans, Principals from amongst themselves. Out of this fifteen, five persons shall be elected separately by the said teachers in University teaching departments and constituent colleges from amongst themselves and the rest ten separately by the said teachers of affiliated colleges from amongst themselves.” “21(1)(ix)(a) - Two teachers, who have put in not less than seven years teaching experience in the institutions of higher education in Rajasthan on 1st January immediately preceding the year in which elections are held, other than University Professors, Deans, Principals of affiliated constituent Colleges, to be elected by the teachers separately from amongst themselves as below .(a) oneteacher to be elected from amongst themselves by the teachers of the University teaching departments and constituent colleges; .(b) one teacher to be elected from amongst themselves by the teachers of the affiliated colleges.” “2(d) - “Teacher” means Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons engaged in the work of leaching in a Department of the University or in any of its affiliated colleges or approved institutions.” 2(ix) - “Teacher” means a Professor, Reader or a Lecturer of any faculty of a University and such other person, by whatever name designated by or under the relevant law, imparting instruction, or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes in a University. 119(b)--“The Vice-Chancellor shall have the authority to correct the Electoral Roll or to supplement by adding, altering or omitting names if any omission or wrong entries are brought to his notice at least 25 clear days before the date of polling. The Vice-Chancellor’s decision shall be final and no election shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of any omission or wrong entry in the Electoral Roll. 119(f) --As soon as possible after the last date fixed for the receipt of nominations, at a time and place fixed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor or any person or persons nominated by him shall scrutinise the nominations. The candidate or his agent duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf shall be entitled to be present at such scrutiny. The candidate or his agent duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf shall be entitled to be present at such scrutiny. The decision of the Scrutineers) shall be final, unless the Vice-Chancellor decides to cancel all the nominations and directs that nominations be invited afresh if in his opinion some technical error has been committed. The Vice-Chancellor’s decision in the matter shall be final.” 6. Theplaintiff averred that his name has been excluded to be included in the list of voters even though he was teacher as defined in the definition. 7. Reply was filed to the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC It was the plea of the petitioner-defendant that the name of the petitioner could not have been included in the electoral roll for the reason that part-time teachers arc not entitled to vote and do not fall under the definition of a “Teacher”. 8. The contention of the petitioner in the suit and also in the present revision petition is that the petitioner being a part-time teacher is not entitled to vote and nor he could be allowed to contest. It was further averred by the petitioner that because of the reason that the tenure of the petitioner is not defined and he can be removed from service any time if the regularly selected persons join in his place and in that situation the plaintiff-non-petitioner cannot continue the membership of the Senate or Syndicate as he ceases to be in service. It was further averred by the petitioner that being a part-time teacher he is being paid the salary basing it on period-wise and not a regular salary. 9. The proposition involved in the present case has already been finally settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ashok Agarwal v. University of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4084/91, decided on 29-7-1991 wherein a similarly situated ‘teacher’ had claimed that he and other similarly situated temporary teachers were eligible to cast their votes in the elections to be held for one seat in Syndicate and five seats in Senate from amongst the teachers. Ashok Agarwal v. University of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4084/91, decided on 29-7-1991 wherein a similarly situated ‘teacher’ had claimed that he and other similarly situated temporary teachers were eligible to cast their votes in the elections to be held for one seat in Syndicate and five seats in Senate from amongst the teachers. After going through the various contentions raised by the parties, the notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor dated 14-6-199 1 to the effect that the categories of persons mentioned therein would not be eligible to the voters for the aforesaid i.e. when the temporary teachers have been excluded to vote was held to be an illegal order. After going through the various provisions of the Act and definition of “Teacher”, the Division Bench of this Court had held as under: “If we go to definition of teachers contained in the Act of 1974 the same is defined under Section 2(ix) and means a Professor, Reader or a Lecturer of any faculty of a University and such other persons, by whatever name designated by or under the relevant law, imparting instruction, or conducting and guiding research or extension programme in a University. The definition of ‘teacher’ as given in the Act is more extensive than as given in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1946. Learned counsel for the University has referred to Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act and on the basis of it he contended that a bare reading of the aforesaid provision will show that nothing contained in Section 3 shall apply to the appointment for a period not exceeding one year or to the appointment of a part-time teacher or of a teacher or officer in the pay scale lower than that of Lecturer or Asstt. Registrar respectively. It cannot be disputed that a person appointed temporarily even under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 will be included under the definition of teacher as given in Section 2(ix) of the Act. Therefore, there can be no dispute that even the appointment under Sub-section (3) of Sections will be for the purpose of both the Acts. Therefore, the petitioner and all others like him whose names are said to be more than 170 will fall in that category of teachers. Therefore, there can be no dispute that even the appointment under Sub-section (3) of Sections will be for the purpose of both the Acts. Therefore, the petitioner and all others like him whose names are said to be more than 170 will fall in that category of teachers. Similarly, for the election to the Syndicate under Section 21(l)(i) two teachers, who have put in not less than seven years’ teaching experience in the institution of higher education in Rajasthan on 1st January immediately preceding the year in which elections are held, other than University Professors, Deans, Principals of Affiliated, Constituent Col leges to be elected by the teachers separately from amongst themselves as provided therein. One teacher has to be elected amongst themselves by the teachers of the University Teaching Department and Constituent Colleges and one teacher to be elected from amongst themselves by the teachers of the affiliated colleges. We are presently concerned with the first category. There can be, therefore, no doubt that all the teachers of whatever standing whether temporary or ad hoc or permanent are voters for the purpose of election to the Syndicate of one teacher from amongst themselves. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner and all other similarly situated persons have a right to vote and their right to vote cannot be denied. 10. Even though no arguments had been addressed on the point to the effect whether such like teachers are entitled to contest the elections or not, the Division Bench had observed that for the reasons that they were being appointed from session to session and the tenure of such elected candidates is of three years, they are not entitled to have a right to contest. It was so observed for the reason that the teachers being appointed from session to session and have no right to continue. The Division Bench had observed as under: We have al ready said that the petitioner has not claimed that he has a right to contest also in the aforesaid election. It was so observed for the reason that the teachers being appointed from session to session and have no right to continue. The Division Bench had observed as under: We have al ready said that the petitioner has not claimed that he has a right to contest also in the aforesaid election. Apart from this, we are of the opinion that if we read to Sub-section (2) of Section 1 under which the persons elected under Clause XXV have to held office for a period of three years, a person, temporary teacher, but may be appointed and in this case was appointed from session to session will have no right to continue and he has no right to contest for the election for a scat in the Senate. Similarly is the provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 21 regarding Syndicate. 11. From the reading of the above, it is very clear that the teacher appointed on ad hoc, temporary or even on the basis of payment on period basis are entitled to vote and are included in the definition of a ‘teacher’ under the Act. 12. Now coming to the proposition whether such like teachers are entitled to contest or not, even though the Division Bench abovesaid has observed to the contrary primarily holding that such like teachers are not likely to continue after the session, the observations were per incuriam No arguments were addressed by any party in that case. It is admitted fact that it was not disputed that no regular appointments have been made by the University and the teachers had to file the writ petitions wherein certain orders had been passed that the teachers appointed from session to session arc entitled to continue till the regular appointments are made. Even otherwise, it is unimaginable that a person who has a right to vote can be denied the right to contest. As per the definition as mentioned above and as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, every teacher appointed in whatever capacity temporary, ad hoc or regular falls under the definition of teacher and the candidates are to be returned to the Syndicate or Senate from the teachers contituency. As per the definition as mentioned above and as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, every teacher appointed in whatever capacity temporary, ad hoc or regular falls under the definition of teacher and the candidates are to be returned to the Syndicate or Senate from the teachers contituency. It cannot be held that the teacher falls under the definition of ‘teacher’ for the purpose of voting only and is excluded from the definition of ‘teacher’ for the purpose of being elected or for contesting. The teacher cannot be deprived of right to be elected on the ground that he may not be allowed to continue after the session, who knows he may continue for years together as has been the experience from the previous cases which have been decided by the High Court wherein the teachers have been continuing for years together without being made regular. Viewing this aspect or even otherwise, the non-petitioner-plaintiff having fallen under the category of “teacher” is entitled to vote and also to contest on the basis of definition of teacher. 13. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the non-petitioner had no objection in filing the binding undertaking before the Vice-Chancellor and also in the Court to the effect that in case he ceases to be the teacher by way of termination, removal, dismissal or for any reason whatsoever he shall resign immediately from such membership of Syndicate or Senate. To my mind to remove the apprehension that if a teacher ceases to be a teacher for whatsoever reasons, but if he continue on the post of Senate or Syndicate, it will lead to abnormal results, it is proper and binding on such elected teacher to resign forthwith that if he ceases to be a teacher at any time and the vacancies shall be caused immediately thereafter which can be fulfilled as per law. 14. With the abovesaid finding, the revision petition is disposed of and as per the consent order on 12-1-1998 wherein the parties had agreed that the suit and all other misc. 14. With the abovesaid finding, the revision petition is disposed of and as per the consent order on 12-1-1998 wherein the parties had agreed that the suit and all other misc. applications arising out of the suit in this revision petition shall stand disposed of in view of the order in this revision petition, I order: .(i) that the revision petition is disposed of as per the finding mentioned above, .(ii) the suit shall stand disposed of as per the finding of the revision petition and the parties shall be bound by the order of this revision petition in the suit as well i.e. A teacher appointed in whatsoever capacity shall be entitled to elect and be elected against the reserved seats of Senate and Syndicate and shall fall under the definition of “Teacher” as per law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Ashok Agrawal (Supra). 15. Any such teacher on having been removed from service or when he ceases to be teacher shall resign forthwith and is deemed to have resigned and such seat shall be deemed to be vacant immediately and such teacher shall have no right to continue as a member of the body to which he was elected after such termination. 16. Record of the case be sent to the trial court along with a copy of this order immediately and the suit and all other matters in the suit shall stand disposed of No order as to costs