ORDER : Ghuvendra S. Rathore, J. Being aggrieved of non-inclusion of the name of petitioner in Bill No.4/2008/ Ordinance to provide for absorption/regularization on the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner had filed this writ petition seeking direction to consider his case for regularisation on the said post. Further, it is prayed to suitably amend the Bill No.04/2008/Ordinance to include officers for providing absorption. After filing of the writ petition, issuance of the notice to the respondents and the respondents have been seeking time for filing reply to the writ petition, that an order came to be passed by the respondent University on 28.11.2008 (Annexure-12) whereby the service of the petitioner came to be terminated. The petitioner sought amendment of the writ petition which was allowed on 10.12.2008. Accordingly, an additional prayer was added to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent No.3- University of Rajasthan and directions were sought for the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Engineer during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has the qualification of B JE. (Civil) in First Division passed in the year 1992 from J.N. Vyas University, Jodhpur. He had also done his M.B.A. In the year 1995 from R.A. Poddar Institute of Management, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The petitioner was given appointment by the respondent - University of Rajasthan vide order dated 23.12.1996 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale as mentioned in the order, for a period of six months or till the regularly selected candidate joins or till further orders, whichever is earlier with effect from the date of joining. The petitioner joined on 23.12.1996. On 17.05.1997, respondent University passed an order for continuing the service of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 23.06.1997 till further orders or till the duly selected candidates join or till further orders which-ever is earlier, on the existing terms and conditions. 4. Similar orders were issued from time to time by the University, in exercise of its powers under section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974 (for short, the 'Act of 1974'). 4. Similar orders were issued from time to time by the University, in exercise of its powers under section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974 (for short, the 'Act of 1974'). For instance, on 15.04.1997 the Vice-Chancellor appointed as many as 143 persons as Assistant Professors in the University purely on ad hoc basis, as stop-gap arrangement, w.e.f. 05.05.1997 for a period of one year or till the duly selected candidates join or till further orders whichever is earlier, on the existing terms and conditions (Annexure-3). 5. Number of persons who had been appointed on stop-gap arrangement and/or casual or on ad hoc basis for want of regularly selected Lecturers preferred writ petition before the High Court and the same came to be decided on 11.10.1996 and several directions were issued to continue till regularly selected persons are made available by the University and to complete the selection process as early as possible, but in no case later than 15.03.1997 (Annexure-5). Several other judgments were rendered by the High Court in similar circumstances and orders were issued not to remove them from service till the regular selections are made. More than 100 teachers in various faculties/disciplines had been given appointments even without advertisement and those teachers had ultimately approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which granted stay order to the effect that till regularly selected teachers are made available, their services would not be terminated (Annexure-4). 6. More than 100 teachers in various faculties/disciplines had been given appointments even without advertisement and those teachers had ultimately approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court which granted stay order to the effect that till regularly selected teachers are made available, their services would not be terminated (Annexure-4). 6. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition (4194/2001) which was decided with the following observation: "For the reason that on behalf of the University a categorical statement has been given that there was no proposal of termination of services of the petitioner who is working since 1996; the respondent has also sanctioned revised pay scale to the petitioner and even arrears have been paid to the petitioner, in my opinion now nothing remains in the writ petition to be decided and the writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the observation that the relief sought by the petitioner has been meted out." Therefore, on a bare perusal of the order passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, on 04.10.2001, it is apparent that relying upon the statement of the counsel for the University, the petitioner was allowed to continue till die regularly selected candidates are made available or till further orders whichever is earlier on the existing terms and conditions. 7. Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, as it existed at that point of time, provided that nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall apply to the appointment of teacher or an officer as 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 a Lecturer or Assistant Registrar, respectively. By amending the Act of 2003, Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 has been deleted/ repealed w.e.f. 01.01.2003. The teachers appointed in exercise of the powers conferred under the said section are enumerable and teachers as well as the petitioner are having long standing service in the University. Various teachers were given appointment since the beginning of the year 1987. Thereafter, they were being considered for absorption and steps have already been taken by the State of Rajasthan by introducing/passing the bill No.4/2008 named as Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of temporary teachers) Bill, 2008. Various teachers were given appointment since the beginning of the year 1987. Thereafter, they were being considered for absorption and steps have already been taken by the State of Rajasthan by introducing/passing the bill No.4/2008 named as Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of temporary teachers) Bill, 2008. The basic object for introducing/passing the said Bill is to provide for absorption of temporary teachers of long standing working in the University of Rajasthan. The objects and the reasons of introducing of the said Bill were as under: "A large number of teachers were appointed in the Universities of Rajasthan under section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 and majority of them are still working. Some of them have even crossed the maximum age limit prescribed by the State Government for the appointment in the State Service. Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 has been repealed with effect from 1.1.2003. Courts have given directions not to remove the temporary teachers from service till regular selections are made. The Advocate General of the State Government had opined to regularise the services of the teachers who had been appointed under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, after due public advertisement. Large number of teaching posts were lying vacant in the Universities and academic environment was adversely affected due to shortage of teachers in the Universities. Therefore, it was proposed that the services of teachers who had been appointed under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, after due public advertisement of vacancies in newspapers, be regularised (Annexure-7). In the Bill so intended to be introduced initially, the temporary teachers who were given appointment under section 3 (3) of the Act of 1974 even without public advertisement were also included for the purpose of absorption/regularisation and to that effect the amendment in the Bill was sought and it was amended. The news item in relation to the amendment as sought by the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education, State of Rajasthan, is appended as Annexure-8. 8. The news item in relation to the amendment as sought by the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education, State of Rajasthan, is appended as Annexure-8. 8. As the State of Rajasthan introduced the said Bill No.4/2008, without including the officers having long standing working in the University of Rajasthan, the petitioner was being discriminated amongst the similarly situated persons and appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 on temporary basis and further the persons having directions in their favour from the High Court not to remove from service till the regular selections are made, the petitioner made representations to the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education, Hon'ble Chief Minister and His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan (Annexures-9, 10 and 11). But the case of the petitioner was not considered for absorption and regularization. The petitioner had submitted in the representation that the position of the teachers who were given adhoc appointment and whose cases are being considered for absorption is similar to that of the petitioner. Therefore, a request was made therein that the case of the petitioner may be considered and he may be treated like other teachers as provided under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 (prior to its amendment) and further he may be regularized. 9. The petitioner had been given appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer which is still lying vacant. Earlier, the respondent University had issued an advertisement for filling the post in the year 2000 but the selection procedure was not started. (Annexure-13). As per the requirement of eligibility, minimum qualification was B.E. Degree from any recognised University. Three posts of Assistant Engineer were lying vacant, out of which The petitioner is working on one post with a qualification of B.E. Degree, the other two posts have been occupied by Diploma Holders. The post of Assistant Engineer in the University of Rajasthan is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment but the persons occupying the posts is not through direct recruitment. Either they are on deputation or promotion from the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner is only from direct recruitment and appointed on the post of ad hoc basis till the regularly selected candidates are made available. Either they are on deputation or promotion from the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner is only from direct recruitment and appointed on the post of ad hoc basis till the regularly selected candidates are made available. A letter was written by the officer on special duty in higher education department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan on 30.01.2008 asking as to whether the persons who have been appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 have been removed from service. The Registrar of the University replied vide letter dated 08.02.2008 mentioning, inter alia, that the service of the petitioner are not terminated on account of the judgment given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4194/2001 decided on 04.10.2001 (Annexures-14 and 15). 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.3- University of Rajasthan issued the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 whereby service of the petitioner was terminated (Annexure-12). Hence, the petitioner amended the writ petition incorporating the order of termination with the appropriate prayer. 11. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their respective replies and making submission before the Court. All the respondents have raised objection to the claim of the petitioner and have submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service. They have denied that the petitioner falls within the category of an employees under section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974. It is also submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made under the stop-gap arrangement and after deletion of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 vide notification dated 01.01.2003, the basis of his temporary appointment does not survive and he does not have any protection under any rule and his service being a stop-gap arrangement is liable to be terminated. 12. The respondent- State of Rajasthan has filed its reply and it has been submitted on its behalf that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not regularly selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer in the office of respondent No.3. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as being filed by a person who was not appointed by following the due process of law. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not regularly selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer in the office of respondent No.3. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as being filed by a person who was not appointed by following the due process of law. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is neither a teacher nor an officer and as such the stop gap arrangement under such rule cannot be made. The said provision has also been deleted by the notification dated 01.01.2003. Neither any protection is available to the petitioner under any rule or law nor he is entitled to stop gap arrangement. The petitioner is not entitled to retain on the post without due selection and appointment under the rules. The interpretation of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 is said to be improper. The appointment of the petitioner being on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement, he is not having any right to retain on the post of Assistant Engineer nor he is entitled to parity with other persons appointed on various posts of officers or teachers for limited period or till the regularly selected candidates are made available. The petitioner has no basis to continue in service unless he gets regular selection. Ad hoc temporary service can be terminated by the employer if the same is not within the provisions of law. As section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 has been deleted, the claim to remain in service is denied and moreso the petitioner is not falling within the definition of teacher or officer. It has not been disputed that the State Government has introduced Bill/ Ordinance of 2008 with the intention to regularise the services of the teachers who are the back bone of the education system (Annexure- R/3). The claim of the petitioner does not survive because he is neither teacher nor officer. The Ordinance of 2008 do not cover the case of the petitioner because he is not a teacher. It is also submitted by the respondent- State that there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India nor there is any discrimination with the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner is claiming parity with different class of persons. It is also submitted by the respondent- State that there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India nor there is any discrimination with the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner is claiming parity with different class of persons. The writ petition is baseless and the petitioner is not entitled to any regularisation or to be retained in service. Therefore, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs in favour of the respondents. 13. The respondent No.3- University of Rajasthan has filed a lengthy reply. A reply was filed on their behalf on 01.12.2008. As mentioned above, after issuing of notices and during the pendency of the writ petition, the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 came to be passed by the said respondent whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated and as such writ petition was amended to incorporate the subsequent developments. Thereafter, the respondent University again filed a detail reply which not only gave reply in respect of amended pleadings of the petition but a detail fresh reply raising number of objections, particularly in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. 14. One of the objection raised by respondent No.3 is that the petitioner apprehending the termination of his service, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Magistrate in Jaipur city. Along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Initially, an interim order in the nature of status quo was granted. Later on, the order of temporary injunction of status quo was not continued though the matter was pending arguments on temporary injunction application. The discontinuing the order of status quo was challenged by the petitioner and a revision petition was filed in High Court wherein an order of status quo was passed on 11.08.1997. However, the revision petition was dismissed on 21.02.2002 as having become infructuous and the basis for the same was the statement made by the counsel for the University that the suit has already been dismissed whereas the order-sheet of07.05.2002 of the Court below reveals that the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on that day in the light of the order passed by the High Court on 21.02.2002. It is also stated that a writ petition No.4194/ 2001 was filed in the High Court with regard to the pay scale being allowed to other Assistant Engineers. Further it was prayed that the respondent University be directed to give benefit of 5th Pay Commission to the petitioner and re-fix him in the appropriate pay scale of 8000-13500 from the date when he was taken on duty i.e. 23.12.1996, with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed not to pass any order adverse to the petitioner. Therefore, it is said that the petitioner is estopped from filing the present writ petition. 15. It has also been stated that the post of Assistant Engineer is not included in the definition of officers which only means; Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Librarian and includes any other officer by whatever name designated and declared by the statutes to be an officer of the University. Further it is submitted that for proper working arrangement the State Government sanctioned three posts of Assistant Engineers which included two posts of Budget and one post of work charge. Against all the three posts of Assistant Engineers, the existing Junior Engineers have been promoted on ad hoc basis in pay scale of Assistant Engineers. Mr. M.S. Rajput, Mr. V.K. Shall and Mr. V.P. Peeplani were so promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer. The service of Mr. M.S. Rajput was terminated in the year 2003-04; Mr. Peeplani stood retired in the year 2008 and Mr. V.K. Shah had been asked to work as Executive Engineer as working arrangement basis. The existing Junior Engineer, Mr. V.K. Gupta has been promoted as Assistant Engineer in May, 1996 only on ad hoc basis. Hence when the petitioner was appointed, there was no vacant post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed as stop-gap arrangement without issuing advertisement and creating the post of Assistant Engineer. The provision of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 was wrongly exercised by the then Vice-Chancellor. The answering respondent- University, in order to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer, had also issued an advertisement on 21.01.2000 but selection could not be held for the same as the State Government did not issue permission. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was illegal in the eye of law. The answering respondent- University, in order to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer, had also issued an advertisement on 21.01.2000 but selection could not be held for the same as the State Government did not issue permission. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was illegal in the eye of law. It has also been stated in the reply that under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 the answering respondent- University of Rajasthan was competent to make ad hoc appointment as stop gap arrangement. 16. Further the case of the University is that the provision with regard to restrictions on appointment of teachers and officers, section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, stood deleted by the State legislation on 01.01.2003 and as an effect of the same, the ad hoc appointment of teachers can be done. But for the existing ad hoc teachers a provision was added by which the teachers appointed in the light of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 and against the existing posts, the State Government was to be requested to extend the service period of such ad hoc appointments periodically for every six months which can be given effect only after and with the approval of the State Government. The petitioner not being a teacher is not covered by the said protection clause, which has been provided by the State Legislation against the vacant posts of teachers only. A similar controversy stood decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the ad hoc appointment in the University of Rajasthan for the post of an officer. However, it was decided in the year 2001 when the provision of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 had existed (Chandagi Ram v. University of Rajasthan 2001 (10) SCC 556 ). The net effect of the abolition of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 had resulted in the term that no teacher or officer in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendation of the selection committee. The net effect of the abolition of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 had resulted in the term that no teacher or officer in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendation of the selection committee. Every appointment of a teacher or an officer made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be void provided that the University may, with prior permission of the State Government extend the term of appointment of such ad hoc or urgent temporary teachers who were appointed as stopgap arrangement prior to and working as such immediately before the commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Amendment Act, 2003, for a period of six months at a time until regular appointments are made in accordance with sub-section (1). The Vice-Chancellor of the University is competent to issue the impugned order dated 28.11.2008. It has been issued specially when the enabling provision of ad hoc appointment or as an stop gap arrangement i.e. Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 stood abolished by the State Legislature. If the prayer of the writ petitioner is accepted, then it would tantamount to making of the law by the Court in the event of judicial review of the issue. The law of the land categorcially speaks that no Court can issue direction for regularisation of an employee to an institution of the State nor make a law in favour of the petitioner. Further more, no parity can either be sought or can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 17. The stand of the University is that the petitioner was given appointment on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per provision under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 vide order dated 23.12.1996 for a period of six months in the pay scale of 2200-2400. Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 has been deleted w.e.f. 01.01.2003. The petitioner is not a teacher nor a similarly situated person, even after deletion of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. In case of teachers, the University had sought their extension after seeking permission from the State Government to continue them as ad hoc teacher in the service, every six months, as the order of the Court is only for the ad hoc Assistant Professors. In case of teachers, the University had sought their extension after seeking permission from the State Government to continue them as ad hoc teacher in the service, every six months, as the order of the Court is only for the ad hoc Assistant Professors. But it has not been passed for officers of the year 1997 when the University was discontinuing the petitioner from service. As per the order dated 04.10.2001 passed in the writ petition (4194/2001), the University had given revised pay scale to the petitioner. No order had been passed to continue in service of the University till regular selection, as was passed in the case of ad hoc Assistant Professor, is made. It is wrong to say that the petitioner is only an officer who has been given appointment under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. It is further submitted that there are several other officers who were given appointment under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 but after abolition of the said provision, their promotion/appointments were withdrawn and they have been asked to look after the work of the said higher post with regard to the continuance of ad hoc Assistant Professors even after abolition of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 w.e.f. 01.01.2003. It has also been submitted that a provision has been amended in the said Act to the effect that the extension of ad hoc Assistant Professors, who were already working, will be made for every six months with the approval of the State Government. The Ordinance for permanent absorption of ad hoc teachers have been promulgated by the State Government in June 2008 and according to its provision, ad hoc teachers have been absorbed in the University as a result of which the services have been made permanent as ad hoc Assistant Professor. 18. It is further the case of the University that the petitioner was given appointment on ad hoc basis, on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 vide order dated 23.12.1996 for a period of six months in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-2400. Later on all the ad hoc appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor Dr. R.N. Singh were cancelled and terminated by the University. 2200-2400. Later on all the ad hoc appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor Dr. R.N. Singh were cancelled and terminated by the University. None of the persons who have been appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 were either regularised or continued in service, except the Assistant Professors. The posts of Assistant Engineer could not be fulfilled by direct recruitment because the State Government had not given permissions for the same. Whenever permission was granted by the State Government, the answering University withheld the selection process for direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer. It has also been submitted that Dr. N.K. Jain, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, had passed the order dated 28.11.2008 without any mala fide intention; in his official capacity after considering the audit report and also in the light of the order of abolition of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. 19. In reply to grounds (A) to (G), it has been submitted by respondent No.3 that section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 had been deleted on 01.01.2003 which provided stop-gap arrangement by appointments of officers/teachers for a period not exceeding one year and the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service w.e.f. 01.01.2003. It is also submitted that the answering University has not made regular selections to the sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineers for want of necessary sanction from the State Government. The University was unable to conduct regular selection for the post of Assistant Engineer prior to the approval of the State Government. The State Government had initially given permission for two posts of Assistant Engineers but selection could not be made as the conditions of the State Government were not acceptable to the University. None of the persons who had been appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 were either regularised or continued in service and the allegation in this regard is baseless. 20. Respondent No.5 has also contested the writ petition by way of filing a reply. It is stated by him that the petitioner has concealed the facts. Further it is stated that the respondent No.5 had been working in the University after being duly selected and facing interview against the post of Junior Engineer. There was another Junior Engineer who was selected along with him, namely; Shri Ajay Sharma. The respondent No.5 and Mr. It is stated by him that the petitioner has concealed the facts. Further it is stated that the respondent No.5 had been working in the University after being duly selected and facing interview against the post of Junior Engineer. There was another Junior Engineer who was selected along with him, namely; Shri Ajay Sharma. The respondent No.5 and Mr. Ajay Sharma were in the same select list; whereas the petitioner was at No.2, Mr. Ajay Sharma was No.3. Earlier also the post of Assistant Engineer was filled up by making ad hoc promotion from the existing Junior Engineers, such as Mr. V.K. Shah, Mr. M.S. Rajput and Mr. V.R Peeplani and they have retired from the post. The petitioner has availed alternative remedy by filing a civil suit before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur city. On the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, a status quo order came to be passed which was not extended after 07.08.1997. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court wherein status quo order was passed on 11.08.1997. The petitioner filed the writ petition (4194/ 2001) before the High Court wherein the University of Rajasthan filed a short affidavit and submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner can be awarded and no written statement is required to be filed. It has also been stated that on the day the petitioner was appointed i.e. 23.12.1996, there was no post of Assistant Engineer vacant with the University because on one post respondent No.5 was working; on the other Mr. Akhilesh Gupta was working on deputation and on third post Mr. M.S. Rajput was working. After appointment of the petitioner, respondent No.5 was sought to be reverted, vide order dated 13.06.1997. As the respondent No.5 was wrongly being reverted, he filed a writ petition (3378/1997) wherein an interim order was granted. The present petitioner moved an application for impleadment as party in that writ petition which was allowed. The respondent No.5 also filed an application on 16.12.2008 for impleadment as a party in the present writ petition and the same was also allowed. 21. The appointment of the petitioner has been made on the post of Assistant Engineer by a wrongful method; dehors the rules and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, void ab initio. 21. The appointment of the petitioner has been made on the post of Assistant Engineer by a wrongful method; dehors the rules and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, void ab initio. The appointment of the petitioner could not have been made even under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 as the power contained therein relates to appointment of a teacher or officer as a stop-gap arrangement. The appointment of the petitioner, in no term, can be said to be in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The question relating to filling up of the posts of Assistant Engineer was placed before the Government and vide order dated 29.08.2003 the Department of Higher Education granted sanction for filling up two posts of Assistant Engineers either on deputation or if it is filled up by promotion or by ad hoc recruitment from amongst the Junior Engineers, then two posts of Junior Engineers were to be abolished. The University never complied with the said order. The State Government again directed on 23.12.2008 to fill up the posts only in accordance with the manner in which the sanction has been granted by it and restrained from conducting interviews. The respondent No.5 continued to work on the higher post of Assistant Engineer but he was not paid the salary of the said post whereas the petitioner was allowed regular pay scale of Assistant Engineer in the terms of the order passed by the Court where consent was given by the counsel for the University. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Syndicate which had taken a decision that one post of Assistant Engineer be filled up by promotion and other post be filled up by direct recruitment. As per the past practice, the post of Assistant Engineer had never been tilled up by direct recruitment. Till date, the post of Assistant Engineer has either been filled up by way of promotion from the existing Junior Engineers substantively appointed or by deputation from the PWD. On the post of Assistant Engineer, respondent No.5 was already having experience as he had been appointed on the said post. The respondent No.5 had already completed 10 years of service as a diploma holder. Even in PWD, a person is entitled for promotion on completion of 10 years of service as junior Engineer. On the post of Assistant Engineer, respondent No.5 was already having experience as he had been appointed on the said post. The respondent No.5 had already completed 10 years of service as a diploma holder. Even in PWD, a person is entitled for promotion on completion of 10 years of service as junior Engineer. Therefore, as per the rules of the State Government, respondent No.5 is entitled for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer after completing 10 years of service and he was rightly given promotion. The respondent No.5 has ultimately prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 22. To begin with, it would be appropriate to take up the case of private respondent No.5 Mr. V.K. Gupta who has got himself impleaded as party and contested the writ petition, so as to see as to how he is concerned or his rights would be effected in adjudication of the case of the petitioner where the grievance raised is against his employer University. Mr. V.K. Gupta is a diploma holder in Engineering and was appointed as Overseer by the University pursuant to his selection on 31.12.1984. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer purely on ad hoc basis vide order dated 07.05.1996. It was mentioned in his promotion order that he will stand automatically reverted to the post of Junior Engineer after Mr. V.K. Shah comes back and takes over as Assistant Engineer. Further it was mentioned in the order of promotion that the ad hoc promotion was purely a temporary arrangement with no commitment for future. 23. Subsequently, a representation for promotion was given to the University by another Junior Engineer, namely; Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma. He was promoted purely on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, Mr. V.K. Gupta as well as Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma were reverted by the University to their substantive post of Overseer (Junior Engineer) with immediate effect. Both the persons challenged the reversion order by filing two separate writ petitions. So far as Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma is concerned, the order of his reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Junior Engineer had attained finality, up to the Division Bench of this Court. 24. Mr. Both the persons challenged the reversion order by filing two separate writ petitions. So far as Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma is concerned, the order of his reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Junior Engineer had attained finality, up to the Division Bench of this Court. 24. Mr. V.K. Gupta filed a writ petition (3378/1997) with the prayer that he should be allowed to continue to work on the post of Assistant Engineer till the time regular selection of the incumbent is held. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge on 18.01.2011. However, as Mr. V.K. Gupta was not satisfied with the order passed by the learned single Judge, he preferred a special appeal with the prayer for setting side the order passed by the learned single Judge; further to direct the University to treat him as a regularly promoted Assistant Engineer from 1996 itself; and to give him all consequential benefits. It is to be noted here that the prayer made by Mr. V.K. Gupta in his writ petition and the special appeal were quite different. 25. Learned Division Bench of this Court while considering the appeal of Mr. V.K. Gupta addressed itself as to whether the appellant before it who does not possess the requisite educational qualification applicable to the post of Assistant Engineer in the University can claim, as of right, his promotion to the said post? While considering the said question, the learned Division Bench observed that after getting direction of the learned single Judge to allow him to continue to work on the post of Assistant Engineer till the time regular selection is done, now wants that he should be treated as a regularly promoted Assistant Engineer without undergoing the regular selection process as ordered by the Court or the prayer which was made by himself. Further it was observed that the appellant before it, has prayed for direction that he be treated as regularly promoted Assistant Engineer on realising that he is not eligible to be considered for regular promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer in the University as he does not possess the required degree in Engineering. Further it was observed that the appellant before it, has prayed for direction that he be treated as regularly promoted Assistant Engineer on realising that he is not eligible to be considered for regular promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer in the University as he does not possess the required degree in Engineering. It was also noted that the appellant therein has himself admitted in paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition that there are no promotional avenues for the Overseers and that a degree in Engineering is the essential qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was his own case, in the writ petition, that as per the University rules, the post of Assistant Engineer was to be filled only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. Ultimately, the learned Division Bench held that "We are of the view that the appellant cannot have vested right to continue on a post to which he was not selected in a regular selection process. The order of his promotion dated 7.5.1996 clearly spells out that the promotion on the post of A.En, given to the appellant was, purely temporary and on ad hoc basis. It was also specifically mentioned in his said promotion order that the appellant will have no right or commitment from the University in future. The appellant has accepted his ad hoc promotion on clear terms, which operates as estoppel against the petitioner." Further it was observed: "At this stage, we would like to note that confronted with the hurdles in his way, the appellant, through his counsel fairly gave up his claim for treating him as a regularly promoted A.En and in this view of the matter, we need not go any further into the question regarding entitlement of the appellant to continue on the post of A.En." Consequently, the learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal of Mr. V.K. Gupta on 08.03.2013. Thereafter, he filed a review petition (146/2013). The said review petition was considered by the learned Division Bench and dismissed the same on 23.11.2013. Therefore, the case of Mr. V.K. Gupta is finally decided by the learned Division Bench of this Court and it is no longer res integra. 26. V.K. Gupta on 08.03.2013. Thereafter, he filed a review petition (146/2013). The said review petition was considered by the learned Division Bench and dismissed the same on 23.11.2013. Therefore, the case of Mr. V.K. Gupta is finally decided by the learned Division Bench of this Court and it is no longer res integra. 26. On completion of studies by the petitioner in B.E. (Civil) and M.B.A. Course, he became qualified and eligible and as such the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan while exercising the powers vested him under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer against a vacant post of direct recruitment. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner, as Assistant Engineer, were extended w.e.f. 23-6-1997 till further orders or till the regularly selected candidate joins, whichever is earlier. 27. The Vice-Chancellor had also given appointment under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 to as many as 143 Assistant Professors purely on ad hoc basis. The terms and conditions and even the language of all the appointment orders of teachers and the officers made under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 was the same. 28. Besides, Mr. V.K. Shah was also appointed on 31.08.1985 as Assistant Engineer, in the pay scale on ad hoc basis till further orders. The said order reads as under: "No. Estt/II/85 dated: Office Order The Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint Shri V.K. Shah, Overseer (Civil) as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) in the scale of Rs. 1000-3-1300-40-1500-50-1800-60-1860 in the University Engineer's Office on an ad hoc basis from the date he joins duty, till further orders or a regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier, against the work charge post of Asstt. Engineer. Necessary orders regarding fixation of his pay will be issued separately. Sd/- Registrar" Similarly, Mr. V.P. Piplani was appointed on 02.04.1986 as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the same pay scale on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. The office order reads as under: "No. Estt/11/86/6594 dated: 2.4.1986 Office Order In pursuance of Government letter No. F.13(5) Edu/Gr.III/85 dated 12.3.1986 approving upgradation of the post of Jr. Engineer (Elec) to that of Asstt. Engineer (Elec.), the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint Shri V.P. Piplani, Jr. Engineer (Elec), as Asstt. Engineer (Elec) in the pay scale of Rs. The office order reads as under: "No. Estt/11/86/6594 dated: 2.4.1986 Office Order In pursuance of Government letter No. F.13(5) Edu/Gr.III/85 dated 12.3.1986 approving upgradation of the post of Jr. Engineer (Elec) to that of Asstt. Engineer (Elec.), the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint Shri V.P. Piplani, Jr. Engineer (Elec), as Asstt. Engineer (Elec) in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-30-1300-40-1500-50-1800-60-1860 on adhoc basis for a period of six months in the first instance with effect from the date he joins. Orders for his pay fixation will be issued separately. Sd/- Registrar" Two other officers of the University, namely; Mr. B.K. Dwivedi and Mr. Sita Ram Gupta were also appointed on 22.11.2008 on the post of Deputy Registrar. Both of them were substantively holding the post of Section Officers (Annexure-24). 29. It is to be noted that other teachers and Research Associates were also appointed by the respondent-University on ad hoc basis under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. Mr. K.L. Batra was appointed on 19.08.2008. In addition to it, five more persons, namely; Dr. Mahipal, Dr. Surendra Singh Chauhan, Mr. Naresh Malik, Dr. Ramesh Chawla and Dr. Ashok Singh were also appointed as Research Associates. Initially, the Research Associates were not treated as teachers and they were not regularised while regularising the services of the teachers after coming of the Ordinance on 05.08.2008. Later on, the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, had on behalf of the State wrote a letter on 31.07.2008 that the Research Associates appointed on ad hoc basis under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 may also be considered for regularisation (Annexure-18). The aforesaid facts reveal that Mr. K.L. Batra was not appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 because when he was given appointment on 19.08.2008, sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act of 1974 had been abolished. But still his case was considered for regularisation in the garb of Ordinance 2008. The aforesaid five persons who had not been regularised earlier were also regularised along with teachers vide order dated 05.08.2008. As a matter of fact, these Research Associates were also not appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. 30. But still his case was considered for regularisation in the garb of Ordinance 2008. The aforesaid five persons who had not been regularised earlier were also regularised along with teachers vide order dated 05.08.2008. As a matter of fact, these Research Associates were also not appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of D.C. Dudi passed an order on 05-01-1998 that the continuation of the services of the respondents shall be till regular selections are made and the University was directed to take expeditious steps for making regular selections. It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court intervened even in the case where engagement was made on period/lecture basis. The said order was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on an SLP filed by the University of Rajasthan against D.C. Dudi and others. Subsequently, a bunch of cases (69 petitions) came up for consideration before the High Court and after deep consideration of the facts, the provisions of law and taking into account the number of judgments passed on the same subject, the High Court decided the cases on 11.10.1996 by issuing a number of directions to the University for appointment of Lecturers, giving preference to those who were already in employment of the University; giving out other categories of preferences and also gave direction to the respondent-University to make regular selection in respect of sanctioned posts of Lectures, as early as possible. 31. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2001, seeking relief for giving benefit of 5th pay commission, came to be allowed on 14.10.2001. Further, the learned Court relied upon the statement categorically made by the University that there was no proposal for terminating the services of the petitioner who has been working since 1996 (Annexure-6). 32. After the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ), the State of Rajasthan introduced Bill No.4/2008 in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly providing for absorption/regularisation of the temporary teachers working for long in the University of Rajasthan, after obtaining legal opinion from the then Advocate General. In the said Bill, the officers of long standing working were excluded. In the said Bill, the officers of long standing working were excluded. The petitioner had then submitted representations to the Government of Rajasthan, Chief Minister and the Minister of Higher Education for including him for regularisation on the same lines as that of the teachers and to make provision, accordingly, in the said Bill. 33. As the State of Rajasthan by way of legislative measures introduced Bill No.4/2008 for absorption of temporary teachers of long standing, but excluded its officers, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for his absorption/regularization by suitably amending the provisions of the said Bill. In such circumstances, the petitioner apprehended that his services may be terminated and, therefore, he filed a suit before the learned Court below with the prayer that the respondent University be restrained from doing away with the service of the petitioner. In the said suit, initially, an interim order in the nature of status quo was granted. But thereafter, the learned trial Court did not continue the interim order. The petitioner had then decided to withdraw the suit and filed the present writ petition. The order of termination was passed lateron, during the pendency of the present writ petition and the same became the primary grievance which was sought to be redressed by amending the writ petition and inclusion of relief for setting aside the order of termination. Therefore, looking to the sequence of event and subject matter of the present writ petition, the objection raised by the respondent with regard to availing remedy by filing of the suit is not sustainable because the same was only in relation to the restraining the respondent from terminating the services of the petitioner which he had apprehended at that time, whereas the relief sought in the present writ petition is totally different and based on the impugned order as such the objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition cannot be sustained. 34. On 27.05.2008, notices were issued on the petition. After service having been effected, the University of Rajasthan had on 12.09.2008 sought time to file reply and the Court granted four weeks time for the same. Subsequently, the Court had, on 16.10.2008, again granted time to the University for filing of reply. 34. On 27.05.2008, notices were issued on the petition. After service having been effected, the University of Rajasthan had on 12.09.2008 sought time to file reply and the Court granted four weeks time for the same. Subsequently, the Court had, on 16.10.2008, again granted time to the University for filing of reply. Despite of ample time having been granted, the respondent-University failed to file reply to the writ petition and as such on 12.11.2008 last opportunity was granted to it for the same. It was on 28.11.2008, that a reply came to be filed on behalf of the University without disclosing that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the same day. In other words, on the date of filing the reply i.e. 28.11.2008, the University of Rajasthan simultaneously terminated the services of the petitioner. It is note worthy that since the initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 1996, his services were never terminated. It appears that filing of the writ petition for regularisation of services in the year 2008 has resulted in termination of the services of the petitioner, after seeking time on number of occasions for filing reply to the writ petition. Ultimately, the petitioner moved an application for seeking amendment which was allowed on 10.12.2008. Consequently, the amended writ petition was taken on record and the respondent-University filed another reply with additional facts which did not find place in the earlier one. By filing of the amended writ petition, the question of terminating the services of the petitioner came in the forefront and initially the relief sought at the time of filing of the writ petition for absorption/regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer went on the back. 35. It would not be out of place to mention here that on 19.01.2009, the Court directed the respondent University to file additional affidavit with regard to any other person continuing in service even after deletion of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. The affidavit filed by the representative of the University in response to the aforesaid direction deposed that: "presently no ad hoc teacher or officer is continuing in the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur who was appointed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 i.e. Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974". 36. The said affidavit submitted by Mr. N.C. Pandya working as Asstt. 36. The said affidavit submitted by Mr. N.C. Pandya working as Asstt. Registrar (Estt.II) in the University of Rajasthan was not given on the basis of record of the University. Nothing had been said in the verification clause that the affidavit being true and correct on the basis of official record. Even the personal knowledge as claimed, on the basis of which affidavit has been filed, does not appear to give the correct statement. The additional affidavit filed by Mr. N.C. Pandya does not correctly reproduce the order of the Court dated 19.01.2009. The correct text of the order was as follows: "Mr. R.A. Katta, counsel for the University of Rajasthan is directed to file additional affidavit to show that no person other than the Teachers, are retained or their service has been regularised under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection and Appointment) Act, 1974." Contrarily, Mr. N.C. Pandya, deposing on behalf of the University of Rajasthan, had quoted the order of the Court as under: "Whether any officer like petitioner is presently continuing in the respondent University after abolition of the provision of 3 (3) of the Act of 1974." Therefore, the deponent who filed the additional affidavit on behalf of the University of Rajasthan had not correctly disclosed the order of the Court and had also responded by avoiding to give the correct information as directed by the Court on 19.01.2009. It is note worthy that Mr. Pandya had filed an affidavit in the case of V.K. Gupta v. University of Rajasthan & others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3378/1997) on 02.11.2007 wherein he had categorically deposed in para 3 as under: "I state that posts of Assistant Engineer are filled in only by direct recruitment (Annex. 16)". The deponent himself is a Section Officer and is not holding the post of Assistant Registrar (Estt.) substantively. The post of Assistant Registrar (Estt.) in the University of Rajasthan is a post to be filled in by direct recruitment and not by promotion. The Assistant Engineers working in the University at the time of filing of the additional affidavit by Mr. N.C. Pandya were as follows: 1. Shri V.K. Shah whose date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineer is 31.08.1985; 2. Shri V.P. Piplani whose date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineer is 02.04.1986; and 3. The Assistant Engineers working in the University at the time of filing of the additional affidavit by Mr. N.C. Pandya were as follows: 1. Shri V.K. Shah whose date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineer is 31.08.1985; 2. Shri V.P. Piplani whose date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineer is 02.04.1986; and 3. Shri V.K. Gupta whose date of initial appointment as Assistant Engineer is 07.05.1996; As mentioned above, the Research Associates who are not included as teachers, were appointed such as Mr. K.L. Batra, Dr. Mahipal, Dr. S.S. Chauhan, Dr. Ramesh Chawla, Dr. Ashok Singh and Mr. Naresh Malik, were appointed after deletion of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, on ad hoc basis. The services of such Research Associates have been regularized. 37. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is amply clear that though the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Engineer since 1996 and there had been other officers with similar nature of service working on the same post and other posts also which do not fall within the category of teachers, the termination of the services of the petitioner had been expedited by the respondent University after filing of the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, after service having been effected on the University, the reply was not immediately filed and the obvious reason appears to be that it was being contemplated and preparations were being made for terminating the services of the petitioner. It is not a mere co-incidence that on the date when reply to the writ petition was filed by the University, the termination order of the petitioner also came on the same day. 38. It appears that during the course of arguments, clear reply on behalf of the University was not forth coming to the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that similarly situated persons working on the same post with similar nature of services were still continuing, though specific directions had been passed by the Court for filing of an additional affidavit on behalf of the University of Rajasthan on the issue that no person other than the teachers were retained or their services have been regularised under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. For the reasons given above, the affidavit filed on behalf of the University, in compliance of the said order, was not only improper and incorrect but seems to have been filed in a casual and irresponsible manner so much so that the verification to the affidavit has been made on personal knowledge of the deponent, instead on the basis of official record because Mr. N.C. Pandya was representing the University and the facts disclosed could only have been on the basis of the record of the University. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405 : ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 : "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 39. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 39. The very circumstance of the instant case that the petitioner was continuing in service since 1996; he has approached this Court by way of filing of the present writ petition to have his services regularized; and the respondent University had terminated the services of the petitioner soon after filing of the writ petition and simultaneously to the filing of the reply on its behalf clearly reveals that the order of termination passed on 28.11.2008 was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, during the pendency of the writ petition. No opportunity of hearing what-so-ever had been given to the petitioner despite of his long standing working on the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent University, ever since December, 1996. It was rather a case which had riped up for regularisation of service more particularly, when services of similarly situated persons were proposed to be regularised by Ordinance 2008 More over, such legislative measures undertaken by the State of Rajasthan was in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) (supra). In the case of Mrs. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India & another (1978)1 SCC 248 : ( AIR 1978 SC 597 , Paras 57 & 58), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "8 Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14CBNS 180. "A long course of decision, beginning with Dr. Bentley's case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature". 9. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Thus, the soul of natural justice is 'fair play in action' and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that 'fair-play in action' demands that before any prejudicial or adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard. The rule was stated by Lord Denning, M.R. In these terms in Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs: - "where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it has not to be done without his being given an opportunity of being heard and of making representations on his own behalf'. In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "As pointed out in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 (at page 463): ( AIR 1985 SC 1416 , P. 1451) "The principles of natural justice are not the creation of Article 14. Article 14 is not their begetter but their constitutional guardian." That case has traced in some detail the origin and development of the concept of principles of natural justice and of the audi alteram partem rule (at pages 463 -480). They apply in diverse situations and not only to cases of State action. As pointed out by 0. Chinnappa Reddy, J., in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCR 533 : ( AIR 1981 SC 818 ), 591 they are implicit in every decision-making function, whether judicial or quasi judicial or administrative." In the case of O.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 :(1993 AIR SCW 1995), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "That the termination of service involves civil consequences and results in deprivation of right to livelihood implicit u/Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, action of terminating services of a workman or casual labour must be just, fair and reasonable in accordance with law. The action/decision administrative in nature which involves civil consequences be just, fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and in consonance with the principles of natural justice." In the case of Jaswant Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others (2002) 9 SCC 700 : (AIR 2000 SC 3586 (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 held as under: "7. The appellants having been appointed pursuant to the order of the Panchayat and having been continued as LDC since February 1987, no order under sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Adhiniyam could have been passed by the Collector without affording the opportunity of hearing to them. Admittedly, the opportunity of hearing has not been given. The impugned order of cancellation, therefore, stands vitiated. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order of cancellation passed by the Collector." In the case of Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others (2003)4 SCC 557 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2041 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "16. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice." 40. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice." 40. A close look to the facts of the case clearly reveals that the service of the petitioner as an officer of the University had been terminated whereas other similarly situated persons were retained, though their appointment was in the same manner and on the same terms and conditions as provided under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974, as the petitioner had been appointed. Such persons were Mr. V.K. Shah, V.P. Piplani, Mr. B.K. Dwivedi and Mr. Sita Ram Gupta. Other non-teaching employees, particularly the Research Associates who were appointed on the same terms and conditions, such as Dr. K.L. Batra, Dr. Mahipal, Dr. S.S. Chauhan, Dr. Ramesh Chawla, Dr. Ashok Singh and Mr. Naresh Malik were regularised despite of the fact that their appointment was subsequently to the deletion of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. It is worth while to note here that in the cases of Research Associates, extension orders had not been passed and they were given appointment only for six months or till regularly selected candidates join or till further orders, whichever is earlier. After expiry of six months, their services were never extended but they still continued and now they have been regularized. Those persons who were appointed after deletion of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 and treating their appointment to be under the said provision, that their services have now been regularized, as for example Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Dr. K.L. Batra. Therefore, it leaves no room of doubt that the respondent acted in a discriminatory manner while terminating the service of the petitioner whereas the others were retained. Thus, the termination of the services of the petitioner is bad in law. In the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others (2009)14 SCC 690 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held : "9. The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases." 12. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, basically is that, the administrative decision taken by the respondents is unfair, unreasonable and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The administrative decision taken by the respondents is within the realm of public law and therefore, the decision ought to have been taken in a fair and reasonable manner. This was more necessary because the action cancelling the promotion of the appellant had civil consequences in the sense that it not only puts an end to the right of the appellant and also his further career prospects. Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to take all decisions in a fair and lawful manner by adhering to the rules of natural justice." 41. Moreover, the petitioner possesses the academic qualification and was eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer which was a vacant post for direct recruitment. In such a situation, on account of the termination of the services of the petitioner after long period of 12 years, he has become over age and is not in a position to get any other employment. There remains no doubt in absence of ground of unsuitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which has put him in a class apart from the officers continuing to work, amounts to unfair discrimination and, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner is bad in law. In the case of The Manager, Government Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa- (1979) 1 SCC 477 : ( AIR 1979 SC 429 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "24. Conversely, if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated arbitrarily, and not on the ground of his unsuitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of unfair discrimination may arise, notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service, the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity, or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of the service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action." 42. The circumstances, in the present case, are speaking for themselves, particularly, that after filing of the writ petition the respondents were pre-determined as soon as they came to know about filing of the present writ petition which is apparent from the fact that after service of the notice of the writ petition for regularization, the respondent University had sought time and contemplated to terminate the service of the petitioner which was ultimately done on 28.11.2008, that is, on the day of filing of the reply to the writ petition. This was intended by the respondent so that they may not have to answer the question with regard to regularisation of the service of the petitioner who had been working on the vacant post with requisite qualification since the year 1996. The entire sequence of events since filing of the writ petition, seeking time again and again to file, reply etc. clearly goes to show that the respondent University was misusing the process of the Court or rather over reaching the process by not filing the reply promptly and was seeking time in preparation of termination of the service of the petitioner. Such action of the respondent University can by no stretch of imagination be termed as just and fair. It was rather suffering from arbitrariness and mala fide. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vyas v. State & ors. 2008 (2) RLW 1621 (Raj.): (2008 Lab IC 2234 (Raj), a co-ordinate bench of this Court has held: "22. I am unable to understand that such type of plea has been taken by the welfare State after taking work from a citizen for more than 20 years, therefore, the action of respondents must be fair so also temporary employment, if necessitated on account of exigency of administration then it is the duty of the respondents to provide at least minimum of pay scales for survival of employee even appointed on temporary basis." Further, it is held: 23. In these circumstances, when large number of persons were regularised by the Government even after completion often years of service in accordance with Work Charged Rules, 1964 then how same benefit can be denied to the petitioner, who has completed more than 20 years of service as on the date he filed the writ petition before this Court. The respondents' action while terminating the services of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition can be defined as arbitrary action because on one hand the petitioner was raising voice before this Court for regularisation of his services because he was getting meager amount for survival and on the other hand his services were terminated after completion of 23 years of service without compliance of the basic principles of law during pendency of writ petition." 43. Another aspect of the matter is that the impugned order of termination cannot stand as being bad in law, for the reason that the same came to be passed in the garb of deletion of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974. In other words, when the appointment of the petitioner was un-disputedly at the time when the said provision was in existence, such a pretext for passing the impugned order tantamounts to giving effect to the deletion of the provision, retrospectively. The fact remains that the deletion of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 was to be treated prospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and the appointment made prior to it cannot be adversely effected by it. When rights had already accrued and vested in an individual, the same cannot be denied on the ground of deletion of the provision, at a later point of time. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been discontinued from service. In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Pic and others v. Controller of Patents and Designs and others (2008) 17 SCC 416 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1147 , Para 7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "15 In the absence of contrary intention in repealing the enactment, rights under the old statute are not destroyed. In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Pic and others v. Controller of Patents and Designs and others (2008) 17 SCC 416 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1147 , Para 7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "15 In the absence of contrary intention in repealing the enactment, rights under the old statute are not destroyed. In Gurucharan Singh Baldev Singh v. Yashwant Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 428 : ( AIR 1992 SC 180 ), it was observed that right to proper consideration of an application by statutory authority remains alive even after repeal of the enactment under which the consideration had been sought." In the case of J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2011)6 SCC 570 : (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 659), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "22. Thus, "vested right" is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provides for such a course." "24. The Legislature is competent to unilaterally alter the service conditions of the employee and that can be done with retrospective effect also, but the intention of the Legislature to apply the amended provisions with retrospective effect must be evident from the Amendment Act itself expressly or by necessary implication. The aforesaid power of the Legislature is qualified further that such a unilateral alteration of service conditions should be in conformity with legal and constitutional provisions." 26. In the instant case, the Amendment Act 2006 is not under challenge. However, the issue agitated by the appellant has been that the legislature never intended to apply the amended provisions with retrospective effect and therefore. the appellant could not be discontinued from the post the rights accrued under the Act/Ordinance which stood repealed would continue to exist unless it has specifically or by necessary implication been taken away by the repealing Act." Even in case of retrospective amendment of an Act or rule, a right vested to a person in service cannot be taken away. Such amendment has to reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. In the case of P.D. Aggarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others (1987) 3 SCC 622 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 , Para 15), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "16. Such amendment has to reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. In the case of P.D. Aggarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others (1987) 3 SCC 622 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1676 , Para 15), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "16. The effect of these amendments is that Assistant Engineers who have become members of the Service being appointed substantively in temporary posts will no longer be members of the service and will have to wait till they are selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers under Rule 5(a)(ii) against quota fixed by Rule 6 for this purpose. This creates serious prejudice to them and it also creates uncertainty as to when they will be selected and appointed against the quota set up for such selection under Rule 5(a)(ii). The amended Rule 23 lays down that a seniority will be determined from the date of order of appointment in substantive vacancy. These amended Rule 23 lays down that seniority will be determined from March 1, 1962 to the existing officers i.e. the respondents appointed substantively against temporary vacancies. It has been urged that Government has the power to amend rules retrospectively and such rules are quite valid. Several decisions have been cited of this Court at the Bar. Undoubtedly the Government has got the power under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution to make rules and amend the rules giving retrospective effect. Nevertheless, such retrospective amendments cannot take away the vested rights and the amendments must be reasonable, not arbitrary or discriminatory violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 44. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondent University is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being discriminatory for the simple reason that similarly situated persons appointed under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 are either being allowed to work continuously or they had been regularized. There has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice when the petitioner possess the requisite qualification, had been appointed by the University under the Act of 1974 and had been working since long, it was incumbent on the part of the University to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 45. There has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice when the petitioner possess the requisite qualification, had been appointed by the University under the Act of 1974 and had been working since long, it was incumbent on the part of the University to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 45. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was entitled to be regularised when other persons with similar position were being done and being aggrieved of the inaction of respondent University for the same that he had filed this writ petition. But instead of it, the services of the petitioner was terminated soon after the receipt of notices issued by the Court on the writ petition. By introducing the Bill No.04/ 2008, the respondent University provided for absorption of temporary teachers of long standing working in it. The respondent also regularised the service of the Research Associates who are in fact not covered under the definition of temporary teachers as given in the Rajasthan University (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 under which the entire process of regularisation had been undertaken. The definition of teachers as given under the Act of 2008 alone had to be considered so far as absorption under the said Act is concerned. 46. Similarly appointed persons under the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 have been regularised or still continuing in service. Some persons have been given appointment even after deletion of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 and they are regularised under the Act of 2008. 47. The post of Assistant Engineer in the University of Rajasthan is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. No promotion is allowed on these posts. Even under the Act of 1974, the said posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. The regularly selected candidates are not made available even till date. 48. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, there existed vacant posts of Assistant Engineer in the University of Rajasthan and, therefore, his appointment was made against duly sanctioned vacant posts which is evident from the appointment order itself, using the expression "or till duly selected candidate joins". Two posts of Assistant Engineer were vacant at the time of appointment of the petitioner. Two posts of Assistant Engineer were vacant at the time of appointment of the petitioner. In addition to it, one post of Assistant Engineer, on work charge basis on which Mr. V.K. Shah was allowed to work, had existed. One post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Technical) was up-graded to that of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1996 on which Mr. V.R Piplani was holding the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was appointed, which is apparent from his appointment order. 49. The petitioner had been in continuous service of the University from 25.12.1996 till 28.11.2008. At no point of time, the continuation of service was due to any order/intervention of the Court. The petitioner had already completed more than 12 years of service without any break and without any intervention of the Court and he is entitled for regularization, consequent upon quashing of the termination. In case of appointment under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 by continuous service of 10 years on the date of Uma Devi's case, ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) they have been regularized. In the case of State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP preferred by the University against the decision rendered in favour of 127 appointees under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 by the High Court, specifically directed to hold regular selections and till regular selections, their services were allowed to be continued. But instead of holding regular selections, the University regularised their services against the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been discriminated by not regularising his service and in fact the University terminated the same in an illegal manner. 50. It had been the practice of the University of Rajasthan for over 40 years by now that first an appointment on ad hoc/temporary basis is given and then they are allowed to continue for a long period. Thereafter, they are regularised either by its own act or through legislative measures. It had happened in the year 1979 and 2008 when teachers of long standing were regularized. Thereafter, they are regularised either by its own act or through legislative measures. It had happened in the year 1979 and 2008 when teachers of long standing were regularized. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been declined the benefit of such practice of the University. 51. The petitioner had also raised objection against the action of the University on the ground that Dr. N.K. Jain, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan had acted in a mala fide manner. Consequent to it, the services of the petitioner were terminated what to say of regularized. He was made a party respondent to the writ petition. But for the reasons best known to Dr. N.K. Jain, he had chosen not to file any reply to counter the averments made in the reference to him and alleged mala fide in the impugned action. Therefore, it stands established that the action of the Vice Chancellor was not just and fair and in fact mala fide against the petitioner who was singled out for terminating the service much less to regularise the same, whereas services of similarly situated persons were either regularised or allowed to be continued. In such a situation, the inevitable conclusion is that the respondent University had acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner by terminating the services and not regularising the same to which he was entitled as in case of similarly situated persons including the one belonging to non-teaching staff had been learned in service and their services were regularized. 52. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer. He was appointed on the said post by order dated 23.12.1996 in the pay scale mentioned in the order, for a period of six months or till the regularly selected candidates join or till further orders, whichever is earlier w.e.f. the date of joining. The petitioner had joined on the same day when the order was issued. Thereafter, his services, vide order dated 17.05.1997 were continued from 23.06.1997 till further orders or till the duly selected candidate joins or till further order whichever is earlier, on the existing terms and conditions. The post of Assistant Engineer was a sanctioned post and to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thereafter, his services, vide order dated 17.05.1997 were continued from 23.06.1997 till further orders or till the duly selected candidate joins or till further order whichever is earlier, on the existing terms and conditions. The post of Assistant Engineer was a sanctioned post and to be filled up by direct recruitment. As in the case of the petitioner, similar orders under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 were issued by the Vice Chancellor and Assistant Professors on ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement, the Research Associates and other persons of the non-teaching staff had been appointed by the University. Subsequently, with the coming of the Bill of 2008 such like persons were absorbed. The said Bill was introduced for the said purpose. The ground of terminating the services of the petitioner under section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 which had been deleted is also not just and fair so much so that not only persons appointed under the said provision of law were continued but even persons had been appointed under the said provision even after deletion of the provision, have also been continued. The respondent University had acted in an unreasonable manner when they promoted certain persons from the post of Junior Engineer which could not have been done for the simple reason that the post of Assistant Engineer was of direct recruitment. It is more than clear that many persons who were appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1974, were allowed to continue and subsequently even some other persons, including on the post of non-teaching staff, had been given appointment. Furthermore when the petitioner sought for regularization, his services were terminated after notices having been issued by the Court, on the writ petition for regularization, to the respondents. No opportunity of hearing or notice etc. was given to the petitioner before terminating his services on which he was continuing since the year 1996 with such a long standing of service and the fact that the petitioner had continued to serve the respondent University continuously since then, during which he became over age as a result he cannot now seek any employment in Government service or its instrumentality. Thus, it leaves no room of doubt that the respondent University had acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory and un-reasonable manner by terminating the service of the petitioner and not in absorbing him so as to regularise his service. 53. Consequently, the writ petition has merit and it deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. The respondent University is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption/regularization on the post of Assistant Engineer. The respondent University is further directed to suitably amend the relevant law to include officer of the University for absorption. The exercise for compliance of the directions shall be done within a period of one month from today. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.