JUDGMENT 1. Since the above noted special appeals are arising out of the common order dated 7.5.1998 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3526/97, 3509/97 and 3357/97 and there are common questions of law involved for consideration of this Court hence, they are being decided by this common order. The appeals were heard finally at the admission stage itself. In all the three writ petitions giving rise to the filing of above noted appeals, the petitioners were initially posted as U.D.Cs; they continued academic pursuit of studies and obtaining higher qualifications by undertaking research work and obtained high degrees. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we deem it appropriate to deal with the facts as in D.B. Civil Special (Writ) No. 314/98 (Dr. Chandgi Ram v. University of Rajasthan) which is being treated as the main case. 3. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") who is holding a degree of Ph.D. on the topic "The opposition in the Indian Parliament and the Foreign Policy (since 1952 to May 1964)" being a qualified candidate and since he fulfilled the eligibility conditions as stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondent-University applied for the post of Director, Students Advisory Bureau for short 'SAB' in October, 1996. The post of Director, SAB is a permanent and sanctioned post which fell vacant after superannuation of another candidate since May-June, 1996. After due verification of the credentials of the appellant, he was given appointment on the post of Director, SAB w.e.f. 13.11.1996 under the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act No. 18 of 1974 for short "the Act of 1974" on ad hoc basis. From the perusal of the office order issued by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 13.11.1996, (Annexure-3) to the writ petition, it is apparent that the Vice-Chancellor had appointed the appellant on ad hoc basis of 90 days or till further orders or till a duly selected candidate joined, whichever was earlier in the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000. After his appointment, the appellant started functioning as Director of SAB and his term of appointment, was extended from time to time and during his service tenure nothing adverse against him was reported by the University. After his appointment, the appellant started functioning as Director of SAB and his term of appointment, was extended from time to time and during his service tenure nothing adverse against him was reported by the University. However, the services of the appellant were terminated w.e.f. 6.6.1997 (vide Annexure-6) to the writ petition under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan University, Jaipur. It has been stated in the aforesaid order that since the appointment of the appellant was made contrary to the decision and direction issued in the matter of Jai Narain Meena v. University of Rajasthan & ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6378/93) decided on 6.1.1994 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and as it had been made in absence of the sanctioned post and without considering the candidature of other eligible candidates and in absence of any open advertisement and adopting procedure prescribed under the rules, hence his services came to be terminated with immediate effect contrary to the rules and in order to ensure the compliance of the order dated 6.1.1994 passed by this Court in the above noted writ petition after obtaining the concurrence of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of termination dated 6.6.1997, the appellant-petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3509/97. The said petition was contested by the respondent-University on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner-appellant is not a permanent employee of the University of Rajasthan and hence was not entitled to avail study leave in order to undertake research work which he did contrary to Rules and without obtaining necessary sanction. However, in reply to show cause notice, the University has not disputed this fact that undertaking research work in the subject of Study ws not possible without study leave and which the appellant had successfully undertaken and completed thus, improving not only his qualifications but also enhanced the prestige of the University. On merits, it has been contended that since there was no regular post of Director SAB available with the University, as such, the services of the petitioner-appellant have been terminated. It has further been contended that in absence of sanctioned post, the petitioner-appellant could not be allowed to continue on the aforesaid post. On merits, it has been contended that since there was no regular post of Director SAB available with the University, as such, the services of the petitioner-appellant have been terminated. It has further been contended that in absence of sanctioned post, the petitioner-appellant could not be allowed to continue on the aforesaid post. On merits, the respondent- University has not successfully established before us as to what were those sparing reasons for the Vice-Chancellor not to have accorded sanction or to have obtained the same from the State Govt. of Rajasthan for the appellant's continuity in service on the said post and if the sanction could not be obtained in advance, why the Post of Director SAB was at all created ? It has further been contended in reply to show cause notice that the appointments against the posts of Assistant Professors (Lecturers) are made after issuing proper advertisement and inviting applications. Since the appellant was not appointed as a regularly selected candidate/employee and in absence of sanctioned post, his services came to be terminated vide order dated 6.6.1997 as referred to above and hence the claim of the appellant either to claim continuity in service or to challenge the impugned order of termination by claiming reinstatement in service is not tenable and justified. 5. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 7.5.1998 has observed that from the perusal of the appointment orders of all the three appellants-petitioners, it is revealed that they were appointed on their respective posts on ad hoc/temporary basis for a short duration have no subsisting right to claim continuity in service and since their appointments were made in absence of sanctioned posts and without considering the candidature of other eligible candidates qua the appellants and in absence of publication of a proper advertisement and since proper procedure as envisaged under the rules with regard to the recruitment was not adopted, obviously the services of all the three appellants were terminated, because their appointments were made by the University contrary to the rules. This fact is explicitly borne out from the perusal of the impugned order of termination dated 6.6.1997 as referred to hereinabove. In the matter of Ashwini Kumar & ors. This fact is explicitly borne out from the perusal of the impugned order of termination dated 6.6.1997 as referred to hereinabove. In the matter of Ashwini Kumar & ors. v. State of Bihar, 1997(1) SCT 573 (SC) : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1628 , it has been laid down by the Apex Court that an employee whose entry in service is illegal, being in total disregard of the recruitment rules, has no case either to claim regularisation or continuity in service. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that in the instant case, the respondent-University was justified in terminating the services of the appellants since their appointments were made contrary to the rules and prescribed procedure for recruitment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as ascertained legal position at issue. 7. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by Mr. Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the appointment of the appellant as Director, SAB in the University of Rajasthan at Jaipur was made by having resort to the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 on ad hoc/temporary basis on 13.11.1996 vide (Annexure-3) to the writ petition for a short duration of 90 days or till duly selected candidate joins, whichever was available earlier as a stop-gap arrangement. Since, during the said period no regular selection could be made by the University, his tenure on the said post was extended for further period of six months vide letter dated 10.2.97. During the aforesaid extended period of his appointment, the appellant sought permission from the University for proceeding on study leave for doing Research Work and the University allowed the appellant for doing the same directing him to execute a bond in favour of the University that he would not leave the University for at least three years after completing his Research Work for Ph.D. and thesis to be submitted by him. In view of the said bond, the appellant could not avail better opportunities of joining other Universities or institutions for teaching or to function on the administrative post. In view of the said bond, the appellant could not avail better opportunities of joining other Universities or institutions for teaching or to function on the administrative post. It was further contended during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the appellants that the performance of the appellant as Director, SAB was quite appreciable and keeping this fact in view his service tenure was also extended by the University for a period of six months in February, 1997 but, suddenly without any complaint or availability of a regularly selected candidate in an arbitrary manner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, his services were terminated by the respondent-University vide its impugned order dated 6.6.1997. Likewise, the services of the other appellants in other connected special appeals i.e. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 313/98 and 315/98 were also terminated by the University whose terms of appointments were similar in nature to that of the present appellant. During the course of hearing, the other contentions which were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are that after giving appointments to the appellants for the abovementioned post, the respondent- University was not justified in issuing fresh advertisement in daily newspapers by living eligible candidates for their regular selection and appointment on the post of Director and other different posts. Since the appellant was an eligible candidate, he applied for regular selection and the process of selection is still continuing while no regular selection of any other eligible candidate has been made nor any such eligible candidate/candidates have been appointed so far in pursuance of the advertisement published by the University. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the above appellants have a right to claim continuity in service and alternatively also they have a better and preferential right to be considered for appointment over and above the other candidates who may be so offering themselves for appointment on different posts so as advertised by the University of Rajasthan in this regard. 8. In support of his above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants at the bar, he placed reliance upon the following judgments : 9. Mrs. Anita Kothari etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1990(1) RLR 87 , Inspector General of Registration U.P. and another v. Avdesh Kumar, 1996(9) SCC 217 : 1996(3) SCT 518 (SC); 10. In support of his above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants at the bar, he placed reliance upon the following judgments : 9. Mrs. Anita Kothari etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1990(1) RLR 87 , Inspector General of Registration U.P. and another v. Avdesh Kumar, 1996(9) SCC 217 : 1996(3) SCT 518 (SC); 10. In the matter of Mrs. Anita Kothari etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), the petitioner joined the services in the State of Rajasthan as a Lecturer in English in 1982. Her service conditions were governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 for short "the Rules of 1986". She continued on the said post and her appointment order was revived every year after academic session and she continued till she was relieved from that post in the year 1989. She along with other similarly situated persons challenged her termination order along with that of other petitioners by moving writ petitions before this Court which were finally heard and decided by the learned Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 20.8.1990. The principal contention which was advanced before this Court was that notwithstanding the existence of number of posts, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the short "the RPSC" had not been able to make regular recruitment and ad hocism was going on for a pretty long time and this kind of uncertainty resulted in creating destabilisation in service as a whole. The learned Division Bench of this Court has also dealt with the ratio of Rule 7A of the Rules of 1986 which makes it binding on the appointing authority to determine as soon possible after Ist April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring as on the said date and also anticipated vacancies during the financial year or where the post is to be filled in either by more than a single method as prescribed in the schedule or to be filled in by more than one methods, the apportionment of the vacancies has to be done in such a manner so as to maintain the prescribed proportion for the overall number of posts already filled in continuous cyclic order giving preference to the promotion quota. In order to meet the aforesaid unprecedented situation, the Division Bench of this Court finally held that there was no option but to continue the petitioners in services of the State Government till regularly selected candidates were made available by the RPSC and their termination would be valid only when direct appointees through RPSC are recruited to such posts. 11. In the matter of Inspector General of Registration U.P. and anr. v. Avdesh Kumar and others (supra) the similar controversy had arisen before the Apex Court with regard to daily rated employees working in the office of the Sub- Registrar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the said case, the employees were appointed subsequent to the cut off date i.e. 1.10.1986. Relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, 1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 182 : 1996(1) SCT 14 (SC); , the Apex Court observed, as under:- "It is represented that some of the candidates have become over- aged. If any of the candidates, who are now working on daily wages or who had worked on daily wages, would be barred by age by the date of selection, the Selection Committee would suitably relax the age and then consider their cases along with all eligible candidates and in case and candidate came to be selected on merit according to the rules in the light of the directions, he/they would be appointed." 12. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants at the bar, it shall be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 which stipulates, as under:-3. Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no officer in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 4. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), every appointment of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in contravention of sub- section (1) shall be null and void. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), every appointment of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in contravention of sub- section (1) shall be null and void. (3) Nothing herein contained shall apply to the appointment of a teacher or an officer as a stop-gap arrangement 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. Explanation - The expression 'appointed' in sub-section (1) shall mean appointed initially and not appointed by way of promotion." 13. From the perusal of the above provision, it is apparent that the competent authority is not authorised to make any appointment of any teacher or any officer of the University except on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1974 and every appointment of a teacher or an officer made in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 shall be null and void. From the perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1974, it is apparent that any appointment of a teacher or an officer which is made by the University as a stop-gap arrangement for a short term not exceeding one year or in respect of appointment of a part-time teacher or an officer in the pay scale lower than that of Lecturer or Assistant Registrar shall not construe any vested legal rights in the said official to claim continuity in service which would vest in a regularly appointed employee of the University either a teacher or as an officer on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee. This fact is also clearly borne out from the perusal of Section 5 which was introduced vide Rajasthan University Teachers, and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) (Amendment Act No. 24) of 1976 which envisages the procedure for constitution of Selection Committee which is authorised and competent to make recommendations for selection and appointment of teachers or officers of the University and which shall comprise of the following : "Constitution of Selection Committees - (1) For every slection of a teacher or of an officer in a University, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of the following - (i) Vice Chancellor of the University concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the Committee; (ii) An eminent educationist to be nominated by the Chancellor for a period of one year; (iii) an eminent educationist to be nominated by the State Government for a period of one year ; (iv) one member of the Syndicate to be nominated by the State Government for a period of one year; and (v) such other persons as members specified in column 2 of the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers mentioned in column 1 thereof : Provided that where the appointment of a teacher is to be made in faculty of agriculture in any University or in any University College imparting instruction or guiding research in agriculture there shall be one more expert to be nominated by the Syndicate out of a panel of names recommended by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research : Provided further that the selection committee for teaching posts in the faculty of Engineering and Technology shall also include an expert to be nominated by the Syndicate out of a panel of names recommended by the All India Council of Technical Education." 14. From the pursuant (perusal ?) of the appointment order of the appellants, it is clearly apparent that their appointments on the different posts were made by the University on ad hoc basis for a short duration or till duly regularly selected candidate joins as a stop-gap arrangement and about 28 persons on administrative posts and about 300 persons were given appointment on teaching posts as Assistant Professors hence, they are not entitled to claim any continuity in service since in our considered opinion, any appointment which is made as a stop-gap arrangement on ad hoc basis does not automatically give any vested legal right to such an employee to claim continutiy in service unless the services of such an employee are regularised by the University by passing a specific order to this effect. We are further of the view that no such regularisation can be done by any institution in absence of sanctioned post or posts and which have got to be created by issuance of a due publication of an advertisement at the first instance and thereafter proper appointments have to be made strictly adhered as per the rules and procedure as is envisaged for such appointments. This procedure if adopted in making regular selection of eligible candidates either for teaching staff or in administrative wing of the University or institution or any services of a State, will obviously obliterate the chances of back door entries which prima facie do not create any vested legal rights in favour of such employees either to claim regularisation or continuity in service in absence of the sanctioned posts. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any document from which it can be established that the appointments of the appellants were made as against the sanctioned posts after due selection from amongst eligible candidates who had applied for such posts. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants himself that the appointments of the appellants were made by the University on the teaching wing purely on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement till duly selected candidates were made available to the University. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants himself that the appointments of the appellants were made by the University on the teaching wing purely on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement till duly selected candidates were made available to the University. Hence, merely because no duly selected candidates have been made available to the University till date for the abovementioned posts, in our view by itself will not create any vested legal right in favour of the appellants to claim either regularisation in service or to claim continuity in service and the University is fully competent to terminate the services of the appellants since their appointments have not been made in accordance with the rules. We are also fortified in our observations from the impugned order dated 6.6.1997 from which, it is apparent that the appointments of the appellants were made without the sanctioned posts and in absence of having issued any open advertisement as well as without adopting procedure as prescribed under the rules. This being the admitted position on the record, in our considered opinion, the appellants have no vested legal right to claim continuity in service and any other consequential benefits and the observations of the learned Single Judge in his order dated 7.5.1998 are not open to challenge in the above noted appeals before us. 15. We are further fortified in our observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 : 1992(3) SCT 201 (SC); and in the matter of Karnataka State Private College Stop-gap Lectures Association v. State of Karnataka and other, 1992(2) SCC 29 : 1992(1) SCT 599 (SC); 16. In the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether it was open to the Court to give directions for regularisation of services of ad hoc/temporary employees of the State Government who had claimed continuity in service on the strength of their having served the concerned departments of the State Government and on the strength of appointment orders which were passed in their favour ? The Apex Court while repelling the contentions of the respondents (petitioners) regarding their right to claim regularisation as against the ad hoc appointments which were made by way of stop-gap arrangement, observed that it is not open to the Court to direct regularisation of such employees who could not satisfy the stipulated conditions required for their regularisation. It was further observed by the Apex Court, as under : "The normal rule is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc of temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirement of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly." 17. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to claim any vested legal right of continuity in service in the University of Rajasthan since their appointments in the service of the said University were made on ad hoc basis for short duration of three months which was extended from time to time till regularly selected candidates were made available to the University. Since no such right flows in their favour from the terms and conditions of their appointment orders and since their appointments were made in absence of sanctioned posts without considering the candidature of other eligible candidates and in absence of having proper procedure adopted by the University for their regular selection prescribed under the rules for recruitment by publication of an open advertisement, we are consequently of the view that they have no subsisting legal right to claim continuity in service. Since, we have been informed that recruitment process for appointment of regularly selected candidates as against the sanctioned post is currently going on, the impugned order dated 7.5.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3509/97, 3526/97 and 3537/97, is modified only to the extent that the appellants shall be eligible to participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates who have applied for such posts which they were holding as on the date of their termination and if they are declared successful in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, they may be appointed by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in accordance with the rules. In the event of their being offered fresh appointments by the University, they shall not be entitled to claim benefits of past service rendered by them to the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur on such posts or to claim any consequential benefits thereof. 18. With the above observations, all the three appeals stand disposed of.Orders accordingly. *******