Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 703 (RAJ)

Manohar Singh Bapna v. University of Udaipur

2002-04-03

D.N.JOSHI, N.N.MATHUR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - D.B. Special Appeal No. 84/92 is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11th December, 1991, dismissing the writ petition. Others two special appeals are directed against the separate orders dated 21.1.92 whereby writ petitions have been dismissed following the decision dated 11.12.91 rendered in Manohar Singh Bapana's case. All the three special appeals are decided by the common order. 2. For the purposes of disposal of the group of special appeals, it will be convenient to refer the facts in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 84/92. The respondent University issued an advertisement No. 4/75 dated 10.7.75 inviting applications on plain paper for appointment on various posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. On of the requisite qualification provided in advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor is extracted as follows "At least a good second class Bachelor's degree followed by a first class Master's degree in the subject, or a good second class Master's decree with at least three years Teaching and/or Research experience, or Ph.D. in the subject." 3. Admittedly the petitioner was not having three years teaching/ research experience or holding a Doctor's degree. 4. The appellant was interviewed by a selection committee, but he was not selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. However, the committee recommended him for appointment on the post of Junior Lecturer. It is not in dispute that there was no advertisement for appointment on the post of Junior Lecturer. According to the University appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Lecturer as a stop gap arrangement under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974. Subsequently by order dated 15.7.77 he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor purely on temporary basis, as stop gap arrangement for a period not exceeding six months or till the regularly selected candidates are available. A regular advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce (In Banking Group) was issued in the year 1982. The appellant also appeared for the interview. However he was not selected. As a regularly selected candidates were made available the services of the appellant was discontinued at the end of the current academic session, i.e. 15th May, 1982. In order to continue the academic session he was given extension up to 15th May, 1982. 5. The appellant also appeared for the interview. However he was not selected. As a regularly selected candidates were made available the services of the appellant was discontinued at the end of the current academic session, i.e. 15th May, 1982. In order to continue the academic session he was given extension up to 15th May, 1982. 5. The petitioner approached to this court by way of writ petition under Section 226, of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to confirm him on the post of Junior Lecturer in terms of Resolution No. 63 dated 31st July, 1976 without subjecting him to any further selection. In alternative, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to get the case of the appellant considered by way of screening. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the selection of the appellant was regular as it was made after inviting the application from the eligible candidates and after holding the due selection. Heavy reliance was placed on a Resolution No. 63 dated 31st July, 1976. Relevant part of the resolution is extracted as follows : "Resolved that employees of the University duly selected and appointed on temporary posts be confirmed whenever permanent post is available provided their work and conduct is found satisfactory." 6. It was also contended that in pursuance of the said resolution persons named in Schedule B, who were selected temporarily, but given appointment of temporary nature, like the petitioner, were confirmed on the post. It was also submitted that some of the persons mentioned in the Schedule B who were not given appointment as per the provisions of Statute 49 still the University appointed them on regular basis. A reference was also made of the case of Shri G.C. Rai Professor of Psychology. 7. The learned Single Judge held that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner's initial appointment was in pursuance of a regular advertisement issued by the University. Learned Single Judge also observed that the original advertisement has not been placed on record, as such it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis after due selection. The learned Single Judge distinguished the case of the petitioner from the persons mentioned in Schedule B. Accordingly the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 8. In the special appeal the appellant has placed on record the advertisement No. 4/75 dated 10.7.75. The learned Single Judge distinguished the case of the petitioner from the persons mentioned in Schedule B. Accordingly the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 8. In the special appeal the appellant has placed on record the advertisement No. 4/75 dated 10.7.75. The University has also filed a counter affidavit and produced certain documents. 9. It is contended by Mr. Mridul, Senior Advocate, that the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc basis in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. It is also submitted that the petitioner was regularly selected in response to the advertisement No. 4/75 and, therefore, in terms of Resolution 63 dated 31st July, 1976, he deserves to be confirmed on the post of Junior Lecturer. 10. We have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the advertisement No. 4/75 was for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce. The appellant was not qualified as he was not having three years teaching/research experience or Doctor's degree. It is also not in dispute that he was not selected on the post of Assistant Professor. There was no advertisement for appointment of the post of Junior Lecturer, but he was recommended for appointment on the post of Junior Lecturer. We have read the order of initial appointment dated 20th September, 1975 Annexure-1. It clearly speaks that the appointment was purely on temporary basis till further order. Thus it was clearly an appointment under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1 1974. Sub-section 3 is extracted as follows "Notwithstanding anything contain in the relevant law as from the commencement from this Act not teacher and no office in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee Constituted under Section 5." 11. The appellant was, never recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee Constituted under Section 5 of the Act of 1974. In fact there was no advertisement for the post of Junior Lecturer. As far as the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, it was on the basis of stop gap arrangement. He had appeared before the Selection Board, but he was not found fit and as such his candidature was rejected. Now the regularly selected candidates have been appointed in this service. As far as the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, it was on the basis of stop gap arrangement. He had appeared before the Selection Board, but he was not found fit and as such his candidature was rejected. Now the regularly selected candidates have been appointed in this service. His appointment on the post of Junior Lecturer, without advertisement was to meet urgent need. Thus, it was purely an stop gap arrangement. This appointment came to an end in 1977. He worked on the post of Assistant Professor purely as a stop gap arrangement till 1982. Since than he is not in the job of the University. Strangely, still the prayer is made to confirm him on the post of Junior Engineer or to say, now he should be reinstated. Thereafter he should be confirmed with all consequential relief i.e. back wages, promotion etc. In our view the appellant has no case at all. 12. As regard the ground of discrimination is concerned, the learned Single Judge has found that the persons named in the Schedule B for appointment on temporary basis were selected by a regularly Selection Board. As such they have been rightly given the benefit of the Resolution 63. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable as he was never selected on the post of Junior Lecturer by a statutory Selection Board. In fact that there was no advertisement for appointment on the post of Junior Lecturer. The case of Mr. G.C. Rai also does not help the appellant, as it was a case of an officer on deputation with University. Thus, there being no infirmity In the order of learned Single Judge, no interference is called for in either of the three appeals. 13. Consequently, all the three special appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.All Special Appeals dismissed. *******