Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 929 (RAJ)

University of Rajasthan v. Dr. S. C. Gupta

2006-03-23

P.S.ASOPA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-These appeals arising from common Judgment of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2692/1998 titled Dr. S.K. Kumbhaj vs. University of Rajasthan and analogous cases, dated 09.05.2005, have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petitions were filed making grievance of stagnation in the post of Associate Professor and manner in which posts of Professor were being filled by making ad hoc promotions by passing the statutory provisions. The petition were allowed with the following direction:- “The University authorities are directed to take all necessary steps to hold regular selections on the vacant sanctioned posts of teaching staff and complete the process of regular selection and appointments within six months.........” 3. One of the points urged before us on behalf of the university was that even though grievance in the writ petitions related to non-filling of posts of Professors by regular selection/promotion, the learned Single Judge going beyond the scope of the petitions issued a general direction with respect to all sanctioned teaching posts. It was submitted that under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 the University has power to make stop-gap promotion for one year but if direction of the learned Single Judge were to be implemented the university cannot make any stop-gap appointment/promotion. It was also submitted that while the posts of Professors and Associate Professors are to be filled by promotion, the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor is to be filled up by direct recruitment. In exigency of service a large number of ad hoc appointments were made in the past and the appointees are continuing for long periods and if the direction of the learned Single Judge is implemented their services would have to be dispensed with which may not be proper at this stage. It was submitted that scheme of regularisation of services of such lecturers is pending consideration and that being a policy matter the Court cannot pre-empt State from taking decision to regularise their services. In any view, it was submitted, if and when such decision is taken to regularise the services of ad hoc lecturers, the persons aggrieved may challenge the same in accordance with law but direction of sort if implemented would amount to removing the ad hoc teachers from employment which again may not be correct. 4. In any view, it was submitted, if and when such decision is taken to regularise the services of ad hoc lecturers, the persons aggrieved may challenge the same in accordance with law but direction of sort if implemented would amount to removing the ad hoc teachers from employment which again may not be correct. 4. After hearing Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the direction of the learned Single Judge to make regular selection on the sanctioned posts as indicated above should be limited to the posts of Professor and Associate Professors. In other words, the posts of Professors/Associate Professors shall be filled up by regular selection in accordance with law within a time frame, say, six months. The direction is without prejudice to the power of the university to make stop-gap promotions on the posts in academic interest of the students for period not exceeding one year as provided in the said Act of 1974. 5. As regards the posts of lecturers, we are of the view that while the ad hoc teachers continuing in employment for long periods may have a case for regularisation of their services in accordance with the scheme consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the claim of candidates from open market cannot be ignored. While considering the question of regularisation of services of ad hoc teachers the State would be well advised to strike a balance between the claims of the serving ad hoc teachers and the candidates from open market. It is needless to point out that candidates passing out from universities too have legitimate expectation of getting employment in the university and if the posts of lecturers were filled by regularising services of ad hoc teachers alone, it may frustrate their legitimate expectations and that may also not be in the academic interest of university. We are of the view that the balance can be struck between rival claims by fixing quota/ratio for ad hoc teachers and candidates from open market. We leave it to the good sense and wisdom of the State to take appropriate decision in this regard. 6. On behalf of ad hoc lecturers our attention was drawn to certain observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order characterising their appointments as back-door entries and void ab initio. We leave it to the good sense and wisdom of the State to take appropriate decision in this regard. 6. On behalf of ad hoc lecturers our attention was drawn to certain observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order characterising their appointments as back-door entries and void ab initio. An apprehension was expressed that in view of such observations the university may find it difficult to consider their cases for regularisation. The apprehension, in our opinion, is unfounded. It may be observed that notwithstanding the manner in which these ad hoc lecturers were appointed, they form a class by themselves and no bald observation can be made with respect of all such appointments as being void and illegal. Further, some right has accrued to such persons with the passage of time to claim regularisation irrespective of the manner of their initial appointment. It is, therefore, clarified that any observation regarding nature of appointment of the ad hoc lecturers will not stand in the way of consideration of their cases for regularisation in accordance with law. 7. An apprehension was also expressed on behalf of the State of certain observations regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Rajasthan on the one hand and the university on the other. It was pointed out that the Memorandum of Understanding has been held to be without authority of law. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1780/2000 Bharat Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 211.2005, a Division Bench of this Court at Jodhpur has upheld similar Memoranda of Understanding between the State on the one hand and the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur on the other hand, and, therefore, the apprehension of the Counsel for the State has no substance. 8. The State and the university are directed to take necessary steps in the light of the observations made hereinabove forthwith. 9. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above and the appeals are accordingly disposed of .