JUDGMENT : AJAY RASTOGI, J. 1. These batch of special appeals are directed against two separate judgments passed by the Ld. Single Judge dt.28-5-2012 & 22-1-2016 but the issue in sum & substance being the same and with consent of the parties are being decided by the present order. 2. SAW-536/2013 & SAW-421/2014 have been preferred against judgment of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dt.28-5-2012 where it has been observed that the service rendered by the Teachers after being absorbed under the Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 (“Act, 2008”) are deemed to be substantively appointed under the Act, 1974 and are entitled to be considered for grant of benefit of CAS taking note of their service having been absorbed by the University vide its order dt.5-8-2008 from the date of initial appointment and rest of the special appeals have been filed against judgment of the Ld. Single Judge dt.22-1-2016 where complaint of the teachers was that although they stood absorbed & became member of Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (“Act, 1974”) from the date of their initial inception into service but still the University has not acknowledged their service rendered for grant of pension under the University Pension Regulations, 1990 (“Regulations, 1990”) which came into force w.e.f 1-1-1990 and taking note of the submissions made, the Ld. Single Judge directed the University that the services rendered by the Teachers be considered to be the qualifying service for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 3. Single Judge directed the University that the services rendered by the Teachers be considered to be the qualifying service for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 3. Brief facts, as consented by the parties, are being noticed from SAW-536/2013 & SAW-417/2016 that the respondents-teachers were the original writ petitioners (Assistant Professor) and their service conditions are governed under the Act, 1974 and the teaching post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer is to be filled through open selection on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, as envisaged u/S.3(1) of the Act, 1974 and that is the only mode of regular recruitment to enter into service as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in the University, that apart in meeting out the emergent exigencies where it may not be possible for the University to hold regular selection in terms of Sec.3(1) of the Act, 1974, adh-hoc/part-time appointment/stop gap arrangement could be made in terms of Sec.3(3) of the Act, 1974 but unfortunately the experience shows that Sec.3(3) which is an exception to Sec.3(1), by passage of time became the rule and being exercised by the University rampantly in appointing teachers in the University for the last about two decades. 4. Earlier there was Ordinance, 1977 which was introduced to regularize such teachers who are working on ad-hoc basis obviously after being screened by the Screening Committee under the provisions of the University Ordinance, 1977 and it has come on record that no regular selections could be held by the University for almost more than two decades & whenever required the University always invoked Sec.3(3) of the Act, 1974 and ad-hoc appointments were made on the teaching post namely Assistant Professor in various subjects. 5. It is also pointed out to this Court that there was a long battle between teachers & administration for regularization looking to the length of service rendered by the teachers obviously for safeguarding their jobs. 5. It is also pointed out to this Court that there was a long battle between teachers & administration for regularization looking to the length of service rendered by the teachers obviously for safeguarding their jobs. At this stage the State Government came to their rescue and introduced Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 with the object & requirement assigned is that the teachers who were appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 they all have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed by the Government for appointment in such services and such appointments u/S.3(3) have been made after public advertisement at the same time since teaching posts are lying vacant in the University, looking to the shortage of teachers and the academic atmosphere is adversely affected and taking this to be the prime concern, the State Government came with the Act, 2008 which was made applicable for all the universities in the State of Rajasthan including the University of Rajathan Jaipur and the Act, 2008 is a complete code in itself laying down the kind of temporary teachers appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 to be screened by the Committee constituted & those who are found suitable looking to their academic record and reports about their work & conduct as referred to u/S.2(iii) of the Act, 2008 be absorbed under the Act, 2008 & be deemed to have been substantively appointed under the Act, 1974 and those who could not be found to be suitable services of such teachers will be discontinued u/S.7 and the Act, 2008 will have overriding effect over the provisions of the Act, 1974 as envisaged u/S.8 of the Act, 2008. 6. After the Act, 2008 came into force the Screening Committee was constituted by the University u/S.4 and the recommendations of the Screening Committee of the various subjects were placed before the Syndicate & taking note thereof, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 5-8-2008 finally resolved as under:— “2. The Syndicate resolved that: (i) The teachers recommended by the Screening Committee for absorption and for substantive appointment be absorbed and substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment in the University (in continuation) as Assistant Professors. The Syndicate resolved that: (i) The teachers recommended by the Screening Committee for absorption and for substantive appointment be absorbed and substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment in the University (in continuation) as Assistant Professors. (ii) The teachers concerned be confirmed from the date after two years from the date of initial appointment (in continuation), treating the period of two years as probation in the light of the provisions of Ordinance 357(A)(i) and (ii) of the University Hand Book. (iii) The seniority of teachers in the Departments and inter-se seniority shall be determined in accordance with Rule No. 5(i) and (ii) of the Rules for Determination of Seniority of the University Teachers as provided in the University Hand Book. (iv) There shall be no financial liability on account of their substantive appointment, and any consequential promotion etc., upto 5th August, 2008 and they shall not be entitled for any arrears etc. for the period upto 5th August, 2008. After approval of the minutes of the Screening Committee by the Syndicate which is a statutory executive body constituted under the Act, 1946, consequential orders came to be passed dt.5-8-2008 giving appointment to at least 272 teachers who were absorbed & substantively appointed in the University from the date of their initial appointment with the rider that there shall be no financial liability on account of their substantive appointment and any consequential promotion etc, upto 5th August, 2008 & they shall not be entitled for any arrears etc, for the period prior to 5th August, 2008. 7. After passing of the order treating the teachers to be substantively appointed and became member of service under the Act, 1974, the complaint was raised by the teachers that after their service being acknowledged & stood absorbed & substantively appointed from the date of their initial inception to service, their services may be considered to be qualifying service for senior/selection scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) & so also for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 8. 8. Although the State Government has reservation throughout in treating their past service to be qualifying service prior to enactment of the Act, 2008 but could not prevail upto the Apex Court and University of Rajasthan all the time was empathetic on the issue of their services after being absorbed and on substantive appointment they became member of service under the Act, 1974 and has to consider the total service rendered to be a qualifying service for the purpose of CAS & also for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 but since the State Government has its reservation it could not be implemented and that was the stage where the teachers approached this Court by filing their respective writ petitions seeking grant of CAS & pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 9. In the reply filed by the University of Rajasthan as a second respondent in the writ petition no. 14653/2010, the University was not even defending but supporting plea of the writ petitioners emphatically that the services rendered by the teachers after being absorbed & on substantive appointment became member of service of the Act, 1974, certainly there services are to be acknowledged & considered as qualifying service for the purpose of CAS and also for pension and the University in their reply, para-11 & 13 in particular specifically countered the Govt. letters dt.19-1-2009 & 18-3-2009 and discussed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 6-7-2009 & while confirming minutes of the Special Syndicate meeting held on 5-8-2008 it was decided that a suitable reply be sent to the State Government upholding its view that teachers after being absorbed and substantively appointed & became member of service of the Act, 1974 their total service rendered has to be acknowledged & considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of CAS and sent its response with affirmation vide letter dt.31-10-2009 Annx.R2/8 and as regards the objection about availability of finance is concerned, it was stated that 80% of its share under CAS has to be borned by the UGC & 20% by the Government and it was finally prayed by the University in its reply to the writ petition that in the light of the justification tendered by the University the writ petitions filed by the teachers be disposed of in terms thereof with certain direction to State Government. Although the State Government opposed request of the teachers about the service rendered prior to passing of the order dt.5-8-2008 for the purpose of CAS and other consequential benefits flowing thereof. 10. The Ld. Single Judge after taking note of the submissions finally arrived to the conclusion that order which has been passed by the University dt.5-8-2008 pursuant to which the teachers were absorbed & substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment was not the subject matter of challenge and further observed that the teachers have rendered services for almost two decades and once being absorbed under the Act, 2008 and substantively appointed and became a member of service vide order dt.5-8-2008 under the Act, 1974, that certainly makes them entitled to claim their services to be considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of CAS and for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 vide two separate judgments dt.28-5-2012 & 22-1-2016 which are impugned in the instant proceedings. 11. It may be relevant to note that the very judgment impugned of the Ld. Single Judge dt.28-5-2012 came to be challenged by the State of Rajasthan in Special Appeal No. 1352-1353/2012 and that came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dt.21-12-2012 and the judgment and order dt.21-12-2012 of the Division Bench of this court confirming the order of the Ld. Single Judge came to be further assailed by the State Government before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11159-11163/2013 and because of the dismissal of the special appeal of the State Government by the Division Bench of this court, the judgment and order dt.21-12-2012 was also challenged by the University of Rajasthan in Special Leave Petition No. 11025/2013 directly before the Apex Court and all the Special Leave Petitions of the State of Rajasthan were dismissed after delay being condoned vide order dt.26-7-2013 and so far as the appeal preferred by the University of Rajasthan is concerned, counsel after knowing the fate of the Special Leave Petitions being dismissed requested to withdraw with liberty to file special appeal before the Division Bench of this court. 12. 12. Taking note of the request of the counsel for University of Rajasthan, the Apex Court still looked the matter on merits and while granting permission for withdrawal of the appeal also observed that there appears no merit in the Special Leave Petition and dismissed vide order dt.26-7-2013. The order of the Apex Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition, preferred by the University of Rajasthan, against the very self same judgment of the Ld. Single Judge dt.28-5-2012, reads as under:— “After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this special leave petition. In view of the request made by the counsel, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Even if this special leave petition had not been withdrawn, it was not a fit case to be entertained as the special leave petitions bearing Nos. 20363-20368 of 2013 and other connected petitions filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan against the impugned judgment already stand dismissed vide this Court's order dated 1.5.2013 The counsel has reiterated the same submissions on behalf of the petitioner/University by filing this special leave petition, although, the University had not filed any appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order passed by the Single Bench of the High Court. Thus there is no merit in the special leave petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.” 13. It may be relevant to note that taking note of the very judgment of the Ld. Single Judge passed before the Bench at Jaipur which is impugned in the instant proceedings dt.28-5-2012, the teachers of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & Anr., Udaipur filed their respective writ petitions before the Single Bench of High Court at Jodhpur (CWP-2845/2012 - Dr. G.S Bhardwaj v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur, CWP-2857/2012-Dr. Sudhar Mathur v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & CWP-9019/2012- Dr. Chhaya Bhatnagar v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur) & their emphasis was under:— “The petitioners' assertion was that they had been appointed against regular vacancies after being subjected to a process of selection through the Selection Committee. Sudhar Mathur v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur & CWP-9019/2012- Dr. Chhaya Bhatnagar v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur) & their emphasis was under:— “The petitioners' assertion was that they had been appointed against regular vacancies after being subjected to a process of selection through the Selection Committee. The petitioners, in order to substantiate their claim for grant of benefit of CAS, bank upon the judgment dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 14653/2010 “Rajeev Saxena v. State of Rajasthan”. It is an admitted position that the said judgment was challenged by the State by filing a Letters Patent Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal. It is further stated that the judgment has.received a seal of approval from the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well.” 14. And taking note of the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Bench at Jaipur which is impugned in the instant proceedings dt.28-5-2012, the batch of writ petitions were disposed by the Single Bench at Jodhpur vide order dt.15-4-2015 and the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court before the Main Seat at Jodhpur came to be challenged at the instance of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology & Anr., by filing special appeals (SAW-480/2015 & connected appeals) which were dismissed by the Division Bench before the Main Seat at Jodhpur vide judgment dt.7-12-2015 and the Division Bench recorded its strong disapproval of the stand taken by the University in filing special appeals primarily for the reason that the written statement filed before the Ld. Single Judge that stand/defence of the University was that the service rendered by the teacher after being absorbed from the date of initial appointment is certainly considered to be qualifying service for the purpose of grant of senior & selection scale under the CAS but took a somersault by filing special appeal against the very judgment of the Ld. Single Judge of this Court on acceptance of the defence of the University as a respondent before the Ld. Single Judge of this Court and we consider it appropriate to quote operative part of the judgment dt.7-12-2015 passed before the Main Seat at Jodhpur in SAW-480/2015, as under:— “10. Single Judge of this Court on acceptance of the defence of the University as a respondent before the Ld. Single Judge of this Court and we consider it appropriate to quote operative part of the judgment dt.7-12-2015 passed before the Main Seat at Jodhpur in SAW-480/2015, as under:— “10. It is thus seen that from the very beginning appellants have taken a consistent stand in favour of private respondents regarding their entitlement for benefit under Career Advancement Scheme from the date of their initial appointment. The appellants in-fact have also been pleading repeatedly to the State Government to accord approval for grant of such benefit to private respondents. And now when the learned Single Judge, having regard to the resolution and specific clear stand taken by the appellants has allowed the benefit in favour of private respondents in their respective petitions, appellants unfortunately feel aggrieved. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the admission of learned counsel for appellants that he was not aware of the resolution passed by the University in favour of Assistant Professors/Lecturers. The relevant extract of the order in this regard is as follows:— “The argument advanced by Sh. Punia, learned counsel for the University that the University is opposed to the prayer of the petitioners for being considered as being in regular service from the date of initial appointment, has to be noticed only for the sake of rejection because he candidly conceded during the course of arguments that the minutes recorded by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 28.7.2008 were not brought to his knowledge when he addressed such arguments before the Court.” Considering these facts, we are of the considered view that the appellants cannot be permitted to change their stand now to contend that private respondents are not entitled for benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. We in fact wish to place on record our strong disapproval of the stand taken by the appellants in these appeals. The conduct of the appellants is highly reprehensible. It is only because of such attitude, the disputes do not end. It is high time, the appellants must realise that if the employees are made to live through endless litigations, their functioning/administration cannot be carried on properly. 11. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 15. The conduct of the appellants is highly reprehensible. It is only because of such attitude, the disputes do not end. It is high time, the appellants must realise that if the employees are made to live through endless litigations, their functioning/administration cannot be carried on properly. 11. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 15. The judgment of the Division Bench of which reference has been made dt.7-12-2015 came to be challenged at the instance of the Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 9194-9195/2016 & 37383/2016 & that came to be dismissed vide order dt.29-6-2016 & 14-8-2017 keeping the question of law open to be examined in other appropriate proceedings. 16. The issue manifests before us is that what will be the effect of the order dt.5-8-2008 passed by the University on the recommendations made by the Syndicate giving substantive appointment to the teachers, as observed, from the date of their initial appointment and became member of service of the Act, 1974. 17. Thus in totality of the matter how far the question is still open for revisiting the matter. 18. Second batch of appeals are directed against judgment of the Ld. Single Judge dt.22-1-2016 where it has been observed that the service rendered by the teachers after being absorbed pursuant to order dt.5-8-2008 that makes them entitled for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 but at the same time further observed that since their entitlement has now been decided they may not be entitled for interest but if it has not been paid within the reasonable period certainly they are entitled to interest @ 9% till payment. 19. The other batch of special appeals preferred by the University of Rajasthan is against the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge dt.22-1-2016 on the premise that although the service rendered by the teachers have been regularized and they stood absorbed from the date of their initial appointment vide order dt.5-8-2008 but the service rendered prior to their absorption could not have been considered to be a qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990, which has been repelled by the Ld. Single Judge under its judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016. 20. Counsel for appellants submits that although before the Ld. Single Judge under its judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016. 20. Counsel for appellants submits that although before the Ld. Single Judge, reply was filed by the University of Rajasthan where grievance of the teachers has been supported & it has been prayed that the writ petition be disposed with direction to the State Government and the grievance of the University was that in the absence of financial assistance from the State Government it may not be possible to pay the benefits of CAS to the teachers of senior & selection scale & so also their retiral dues under the Pension Regulations, 1990 but submits that the order dt.5-8-2008 passed on the recommendations of the Syndicate absorbing the teachers & deemed to be substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment was per-se bad in law and if examined on the principles laid down by the Apex Court, such of the teachers who are absorbed in service at a later point of time, it will always relate to the date of order or from the date the Act, 2008 became effective & not from the date of initial appointment or anterior thereto and the teachers who are working on adhoc/temporary basis made substantive after being screened from initial appointment and the past service benefits which has been extended on the recommendations of the Syndicate under its minutes of the meeting dt.5-8-2008 is not legally sustainable in the eye of law and in support of submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in University of Rajasthan v. Prem Lata Agrawal, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 705 . 21. Counsel submits that there was a rider in the order dt.5-8-2008 that they will not get any financial benefits of the period prior to the order dt.5-8-2008 and the service which the teacher has rendered subsequent to his substantive appointment could be considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of CAS and further submits that those who are appointed on temporary basis or stop gap arrangement u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 being dehors the provisions of the Act, 1974 could not have been regularized in making them substantive on the post held by them prior to being screened under the Act, 2008 and in the given facts & circumstances order of the Ld. Single Judge mandating the authorities to consider the past service rendered by the teachers in terms of the order dt.5-8-2008 as a substantive service for grant of CAS is against the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgment relied upon and further submits that after the amendment made in 2013 under the Act, 1946 Sec.35B has been added which authorizes the State Government to be a watch dog in reference to the funds provided to the universities and that apart if that has been mis-utilized or utilized for other purposes without seeking permission for re-appropriation certainly the State Government is competent to question. 22. In the batch of appeals which has been preferred against the judgment dt.22-1-2016, Sh. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv., assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma Adv., submits that the qualifying service rendered prior to the order dt.5-8-2008 being adhoc could not be considered as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 and the Ld. Single Judge committed an error in mandating that the services of the teachers in terms of the order dt.5-8-2008 pursuant to which they have been substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment after being screened & absorbed are entitled for pension is not legally sustainable in the light of provisions of the Act, 2008 pursuant to which the teacher working on adhoc basis became member of service of the Act, 1974. 23. The grievance of the State Government in filing of the special appeals is in reference to the observations which has been made by the Ld. Single Judge in its judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016 needs interference by this court, reads as under:— “The issue of financial burden has been raised on behalf of the University thus taking the aforesaid into consideration, this court is of the opinion that the State Government would take a proper view in the matter so that while the University may survive without further financial crunches, petitioners get their due benefits.” 24. As regards the State Government is concerned, objection of the Advocate General is that the University has not come out with the statement of their financial position and University being the creature of statute holds its autonomy & cannot remain dependent on the State Government for financial assistance in view of Sec.35-B of the Act, 1946. 25. As regards the State Government is concerned, objection of the Advocate General is that the University has not come out with the statement of their financial position and University being the creature of statute holds its autonomy & cannot remain dependent on the State Government for financial assistance in view of Sec.35-B of the Act, 1946. 25. Per contra, counsel for the respondents on the other hand jointly submits that the University of Rajasthan at least has no locus standi to question order of the Ld. Single Judge for the reason that University of Rajasthan as a respondent in the writ petition filed its reply filed to the petition and all the time supporting plea of the teachers before the Ld. Single Judge and the limited question which was agitated by the University before the ld. Single Judge was about availability of funds & for seeking direction against the State Government and in the given facts & circumstances the finding which has been recorded by the Ld. Single Judge under its judgment impugned is only after taking note of the defence of the University as such the appellant University has no locus to question judgment of the Ld. Single Judge in the instant proceedings. 26. Counsel further submits that once the SLP preferred by the University of Rajasthan arising from the judgment of the Ld. Single Bench at Jodhpur which was based upon the judgment of the Single Judge impugned dt.28-5-2012, has been dismissed it is not open for the University to now question order of the Ld. Single Judge and submits that the University has been supporting throughout the plea of the teachers before the Ld. Single Judge that they have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment and are entitled to the benefit of CAS and so also for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 and taking such a ‘U’ turn in questioning judgment of the Ld. Single Judge that they have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment and are entitled to the benefit of CAS and so also for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 and taking such a ‘U’ turn in questioning judgment of the Ld. Single Judge appears to be for the reason that later when the matter came before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 23-5-2013 for approval of the action there was a change of guards and a bureaucrat was handed over the additional charge of Vice Chancellor of the University who recorded his note of dissent on the recommendations made by the Syndicate & that appears to be the reason for which the University has filed special appeals but once the resolution of the Syndicate has been acted upon & consequential orders have been passed by the University of Rajasthan dt.5-8-2008 which was neither recalled nor reviewed by the University is not open to question by the authority itself in special appeal its order dt.5-8-2008 notified at their instance. 27. Counsel further submits that apart from the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dt.28-5-2012 which was relied upon by other universities and teachers who are member of various other Universities in the State of Rajasthan, all the universities have uniformly applied the same preposition provided under the Act, 2008 and services of the teachers were regularized from the date of their initial appointment and the benefit of CAS & other consequential benefits has been extended to them placing reliance on the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge of this Court which is impugned in the instant proceedings and before the Main Seat at Jodhpur as well the Ld. Single Judge in the case of Dr. Sudha Mathur v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, (CWP-2857/2012 & other connected petitions) disposed of the batch of writ petitions with direction to grant benefit of CAS taking note of their confirmation in service and the special appeal preferred against that very judgment of the Single Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, that has been dismissed and while disposing of the special appeals the Division Bench has recorded its strong disapproval of the stand taken by the University in filing special appeals under its judgment dt. 7-12-2015 and even the Special Leave to Appeal preferred against judgment of the Division Bench dt.7-12-2015 has also been dismissed by the Apex Court and the question which has been raised by counsel for appellant at this stage is no more res integra to be considered by this Court after being examined by the Division Bench of this Court & confirmed by the Apex Court as well. 28. We have considered the submissions of the parties on merits and with their assistance perused the material on record. It is not disputed that services of the teachers are regulated under the Act, 1974 and substantive appointments could be made on the recommendations of the statutory Selection Committee but a very disturbing situation has come/arisen that the University failed in discharge of its duty and to some extent the State of Raj. It is not disputed that services of the teachers are regulated under the Act, 1974 and substantive appointments could be made on the recommendations of the statutory Selection Committee but a very disturbing situation has come/arisen that the University failed in discharge of its duty and to some extent the State of Raj. is also responsible & for more than two decades no substantive appointments could be made u/S.3(1) of the Act which is the only source of recruitment of a teacher under the provisions of the Act, 1974 and whenever the exigency arises at a given point of time either on account of shortage of teachers or more teachers are required, the provisions u/S.3(3) came to be invoked with the hope & belief that the authority may initiate the process of making regular appointments as envisaged u/S.3(1) of the Act, 1974 expeditiously but the experience shows that no substantive appointments were made for more than two decades and Sec.3(3) of the Act, 1974 which is an exception to Sec.3(1), to be used very sparingly, by passage of time became a rule and whenever there was a requirement to fill the substantive sanctioned posts of teachers of the various faculties the University adopted the easy recourse invoked Sec.3(3) and ad-hoc appointments were made & by the time 272 teachers were working in the University on temporary basis appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 and after there was a series of litigation by the teachers for safeguarding their interest, orders were passed by this Court time & again to hold regular selection and till than allow the temporary teachers to continue but the University failed to hold regular selections and the temporary teachers are allowed to continue for almost two decades and at this stage the State Government intervened in the matter and the Act, 2008 came into force with the object that the teachers who were working for long and either are at the verge of retirement appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 at least they may be absorbed and became member of service and such of the temporary teachers as defined u/S.2(iv) of the Act, 2008 after being screened by a committee constituted u/S.4 of the Act, 2008, minutes of the screening committee were placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 5-8-2008 and on approval of the recommendations of screening committees in consequence thereof order came to be passed dt.5-8-2008 absorbing the teachers and became substantive from the date of their initial appointment and a member of service of Act, 1974. 29. A teacher is someone who gains from the experience of working with young people. How can one expect commitment from someone who is hired for a short while and is facing chronic uncertainty. Teaching used to be a career until the late 80's and 90's but now our brightest young people want to avoid this profession as they know how vulnerable it is. One could very well see the plight of the students at the one hand, vacancy of teachers could not be filled may be for any administrative reasons for a sufficient long time as in the instant case for more than two decades and no option is left then to fill the sanctioned posts of teachers by making temporary appointments invoking Sec.3(3) of the Act, 1974 and if the vacancies remained unfilled or there is assurance that it should be filled in due course of time what does it mean and when there is a complete restriction on making temporary appointments which ordinarily as observed should be to safeguard the interest of the students to be invoked as an exception to the Rule of making substantive appointments which in the instant case has been given a complete go-bye for at least two decades and the student who joined the University even might not be having a subject teacher for the reason that substantive appointments could not be made and temporary appointments are not permissible the consequence is the student needs to wait and pass out his graduation/post-graduation without a teacher and in the given situation what will be the fate of the student which might occurred who is never at fault but a victim for the fault of the authorities who failed to discharge its legal obligation in making regular/substantive appointments of teachers & that has to be taken on top priority. 30. 30. The submissions made by counsel for the appellant University questioning the Syndicate's resolution & consequential order dt.5-8-2008 for grant of CAS is of no substance for the reason that the Syndicate is a statutory executive body of the University and it has to discharge its statutory duties prescribed u/S.22(g) of the Act, 1946 and in the constitution of the Syndicate apart from the officers of the University the government nominees are also its members and that being so the Government has a right of say and keep a vigil over functioning through its nominee in the constitution of Syndicate of the University constituted under the Act, 1946 has made recommendations to grant benefit of past service rendered by the teachers who were appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 and in consequence thereof the teachers were absorbed & substantively appointed & became member of service under the Act, 1974 pursuant to order dt.5-8-2008. 31. The decision/resolution of the Syndicate or the order if any passed in consequence thereof are always open to judicial review as in the instant case the order dt.5-8-2008 passed by the appellant-University of Rajasthan on the recommendations of the Syndicate was open for judicial review but was never the subject matter of challenge in any of the proceedings on the contrary the teachers when approached this Court by filing their respective writ petitions with the limited grievance that once their services have been acknowledged from the date of their initial appointment there appears no reason not to consider them for the benefit of CAS and the University of Rajasthan supported the cause of the teachers as indicated from the reply filed by University of Rajasthan to the writ petition before the Ld. Single Judge of which reference has been made in above paras and the only objection was that the Government should be directed to release funds and because of the financial constraints being faced by the University it is not possible for the University to discharge its legal obligation and we find no reason or justification at least for the University in questioning order of the Ld. Single Judge more so when the order dt.5-8-2008 has been passed on the recommendations of the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan and was never questioned in any of the proceedings before the Ld. Single Judge more so when the order dt.5-8-2008 has been passed on the recommendations of the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan and was never questioned in any of the proceedings before the Ld. Single Judge but when it could not have been possible to question directly, approached the Division Bench of this Court questioning order of the Ld. Single Judge by adopting this indirect method of filing special appeals and practically assailing order dt.5-8-2008 and this court finds substance that the special appeals preferred at the instance of the University appellant is not only on principle to question but the later minutes of the Syndicate dt.27-5-2013 reveals that a bureaucrat who became the ad-hoc Vice Chancellor of the University since recorded its note of dissent but still the minutes of the Syndicate meeting approved by majority appears to be the reason for which the University filed the batch of special appeals. 32. The judgment on which the counsel placed reliance reported in (2013) 3 SCC 705 is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where the teachers approached the Court at the stage after they stood retired from service before the Act of 2008 came into force and their grievance was that the temporary service rendered by them be treated to be regular service and to make them member of Pension Regulations, 1990 for all practical purposes which was declined by the Apex Court for the reason that they were not the member of service at the time when they stood retired from service and consequential effect of the Pension Regulations, 1990 would not make them member of service for the purpose of grant of pension under the Scheme of Regulations, 1990. 33. However, in the instant case, after the Act, 2008 came into force the existing teachers who were working became member of service which acknowledges their service for the benefit of CAS & also for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990 & other benefits flowing thereof and the observations made by the Apex Court in the given facts & circumstances may not be of any assistance to the appellant. 34. 34. The further submission made by appellants' counsel that after the Act, 2008 came into force the Syndicate committed apparent error in regularizing their service from the date of their initial appointment, in our view it is not open for the University to question and once the screening committee constituted under the Act, 2008 has recommended case of the teachers and the Syndicate a statutory committee approved such recommendations and resolved to absorb & appoint substantively from the date of initial appointment, keeping in view the duties being discharged by the teachers during the interregnum period when the University failed to discharge its legal obligation in making regular appointments u/S.3(1) of the Act, 1974 and the teachers who have served for at least one/two decades appointed u/S.3(3) of the Act, 1974 ultimately became suffers for none of their fault & looking to the kind of duties being discharged by a teacher, no distinction could be pointed out and such decision cannot be said to be apparently irrational or impermissible in the eye of law but still taking note of the fact situation we are of the view that it is not open for the University to question the decision of the Syndicate a statutory body constituted under the Act, 1946 of the University of Rajasthan, in the intra court appeal to examine the question which was neither raised nor examined by the Ld. Single Judge at the instance of the University of Rajasthan in the writ proceedings. 35. So far the submission made by Sh. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv., assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma Adv., in respect of applicability of the Pension Regulations, 1990 is concerned, the Ld. Single Judge in its judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016 has specifically observed that once the teacher became a member of service from the date of his initial appointment there appears no bar/impediment under the Pension Regulations, 1990 which deprives him from being considered to be a member of Pension Scheme and we find substance in what has been observed by the Ld. Single Judge in its judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016 has specifically observed that once the teacher became a member of service from the date of his initial appointment there appears no bar/impediment under the Pension Regulations, 1990 which deprives him from being considered to be a member of Pension Scheme and we find substance in what has been observed by the Ld. Single Judge for the reason that the University Pension Regulations, 1990 has become effective from 1-1-1990 and we consider it appropriate to refer certain provisions of the Scheme of Pension Regulations, 1990 for appreciation of the submissions, as under:— Reg.2:— Scope and Application:— (i) These regulations shall also apply to all persons regularly appointed to the service of the University of Rajasthan on or after 1.1.1990 (ii) These regulations shall also apply to all existing employees-both teaching and non-teaching-who opt for pension scheme under these regulations within the period specified in Reg. for exercising option. In the case of employees who do not exercise option within the specified period it will be deemed that the concerned employee has opted for the pension scheme under these regulations. Provided that these regulations shall not apply to: (a) Persons employed on contract or part-time basis. (b) Persons on deputation to the University. (c) Purely temporary and daily wages staff. (d) Re-employed pensioners. Reg.3: Definitions: (5) “Pension Fund” means the fund created for purpose of transferring the total accumulated amount of University contribution in C.P.F (including the amount of loan taken out of it) and interest there on as on date of commencement of these regulations and monthly contribution made thereafter in respect of such employees who opted or are deemed to have opted the pension scheme under these regulations. The pension paid to the retired employees shall be charged to this Fund. Reg.22: Conditions of Qualifying Service: The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms the following conditions: (1) It is a paid service of a regularly appointed employee under the University. (2) The employment is in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity. Reg. The pension paid to the retired employees shall be charged to this Fund. Reg.22: Conditions of Qualifying Service: The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms the following conditions: (1) It is a paid service of a regularly appointed employee under the University. (2) The employment is in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity. Reg. 47: Creation of the Pension Fund: In case of all such employees who opt for pension scheme and are governed under these regulations, the total accumulated amount of University contribution in C.P.F (including the Amount of loan taken out of it) and interest there on as on 1st January, 1990 will be transferred to the pension fund created under these regulations. There after, the University's share of monthly contribution in respect of all such employees, as aforesaid, will be deposited in the pension fund every month latest by 10th of the next month.” 36. If we look into the scheme of Pension Regulations, 1990 it clearly emerges that the Pension Scheme has become applicable u/Reg.2(i)(ii) to the persons who are regularly appointed to the service of University on or after 1-1-1990 and as per Reg.5 read with Reg.47 the pension fund has to be created from monthly contribution of the members of the fund along with University's share of monthly contribution in respect of such employees to be deposited in the pension fund every month and pension paid to the retired employees shall be charged from the pension fund at the same time Reg.22 refers to the conditions of qualifying service and the paid service of regularly appointed employee under the University and his employment in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity shall be considered to be a qualifying service for all practical purposes which makes him entitled for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1990, with the rider appears to be that it will be applicable to only such of the persons who are regularly appointed on or after 1-1-1990. 37. 37. In the instant case, the teachers who are absorbed under the Act, 2008 and substantively appointed & became member of the service of the Act, 1974 vide order dt.5-8-2008 from the date of initial appointment indisputably became member of the Scheme of Pension Regulations, 1990 and the accumulated fund of CPF and monthly contribution of the service rendered by the teacher after Regulations, 1990 became effective & of University's contribution has to be transferred to the pension fund after 1990 and pension be paid to the retired employees to be charged from the corpus of the pension fund created under the Pension Regulations, 1990. 38. Thus inbuilt mechanism has been provided how the pension fund shall be created and paid to the retired employees. 39. So far as grievance of the State is concerned, suffice to say that Sec.35-B has been added by the Amendment Act of 2013 to safeguard interest of the State Government and we do find substance that where the government funds are involved it is open for the Government to keep a vigil over its utilization and the observations which has been made by the Ld. Single Judge under judgment impugned dt.22-1-2016 are in consonance with the mandate of Sec.35-B of the Act, 1946. 40. At this stage we would like to record that the Government cannot remain ignorant or a silent spectator from the fact that draft pension scheme primarily was approved by the Govt. and sent to all the universities with the enclosure dt.16-4-1990 to be made effective from 1-1-1990, in consequence thereof the Universities got its approval from its statutory bodies, like in the instant case by the Syndicate in exercise of power u/S.22(g) of the Act, 1946 and it was expected from the Govt. to provide funds if required to make the scheme operational & effective to fulfill its social obligation towards the employees who have given their valuable services to the institution with contentment and protection from social evils in their old days. 41. to provide funds if required to make the scheme operational & effective to fulfill its social obligation towards the employees who have given their valuable services to the institution with contentment and protection from social evils in their old days. 41. It is also true that the University alone cannot generate funds with its limited resources at the same time if there is mis-utilization of the funds allocated by the Government for the purpose it is sanctioned certainly it is open for the Government to control & keep vigil over the funds allocated & its utilization must be within the four corners of Sec.35-B of the Act, 1946. 42. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error in the judgment impugned dt.28-5-2012 & 22-1-2016 which may call for our interference. 43. Consequently, the special appeals are without substance & deserves to be dismissed with observations (supra). No cost. 44. Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.