JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.536 of 2013 and connected matters. 4. In terms of Section 3(1) of Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act No.18 of 1974,(in short 'the Act of 1974') restrictions are placed on appointment of teachers and officers. Said Section 3 (1) stipulates that no teacher or officer in any University shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 4. Sub Section (3) of Section 3 however carves out an exception to the rigour of Section 3(1). Section 3 of the Act is to the following effect: Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers:- "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no officer in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the selection committee constituted under Section 4. (2) Every appointment of a teacher or an officer in any University made in contravention of sub-section(1) shall be null and void. Provided that the University may, without prior permission of the State Government, extend the term of appointment of such ad hoc or urgent temporary teachers who were appointed as stop gap arrangement prior to, and working as such immediately before, the commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (selection for appointment)(Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No.7 of 2001), for a period of six months at a time until regular appointments are made in accordance with sub-section(1). (3) Nothing herein contained shall apply to the appointment of a teacher or an officer as a stop-gap arrangement for a period not exceeding one year or to the appointment or a part-time teacher or of a teacher or officer in the pay scale lower than that of Lecturer or Assistant Registrar respectively." 5. It is common ground that no regular appointments were made by the University for almost two decades and number of teachers came to be appointed in exercise of power under Section 3 (3) of the Act of 1974. 6. The issue of regularising the services of such teachers engaged the attention of the State and an Ordinance was promulgated in 1977 which however, did not fructify into any enactment. 6. The issue of regularising the services of such teachers engaged the attention of the State and an Ordinance was promulgated in 1977 which however, did not fructify into any enactment. In the year 2008, the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 (in short 'the Act of 2008') was enacted to regularize the services of teachers and Section 3 of the said Act of 2008 was to the following effect: "3. All temporary teachers continuing as such at the commencement of this Act shall be considered by the University concerned for this absorption and substantive appointment on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under Section 4, subject to their fulfilling the condition of eligibility, including minimum qualification, prescribed by the University concerned under the relevant law and subject to the availability of substantive vacancies of teachers in the Department concerned." 7. Thereafter, the Screening Committee went into the matter and in terms of its report, consequential orders came to be passed on 5.8.2008 giving appointment to 272 teachers who were absorbed and substantively appointed in the University from the date of their initial appointment. This order mentioned the date of absorption-substantive appointment and the date of confirmation against the name of each of those 272 teachers. The Order further stipulated:- "They shall not be entitled for any financial benefit prior to 5.8.2008 on account of their substantive appointment, and any consequential promotion etc. and they shall not be entitled for any arrears on account of substantive appointment or any consequential promotion etc up to 5.8.2008." 8. It is thus clear that those teachers came to be absorbed from their initial dates of appointment but no financial benefit and or arrears could be claimed by any of the teachers in respect of period up to 5.8.2008. The teachers, however, contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme and pension and for reckoning such benefits, the entire period of service put in by every one of them had to be counted. 9. The challenge in that behalf was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan by his judgment and order dated 28.5.2012. This decision was challenged by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. 9. The challenge in that behalf was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan by his judgment and order dated 28.5.2012. This decision was challenged by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench having rejected the challenge, the State approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 1.5.2013. Later, the University, which had not filed any Letters Patent Appeal, challenged the decision of the Single Judge by filing Special Leave Petition directly in this Court. The challenge at the instance of the University was also rejected by this Court on 26.7.2013 with following observations: "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 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." 10. Though, the University withdrew the Special Leave Petition, the observations of this Court were clear that even if the challenge was entertained by the Court, it would have resulted in dismissal. 11. After seeking liberty to withdraw the petition, the University, thereafter, preferred appeals before the Division Bench raising challenge against the decision of the Single Judge. The Division Bench, following the earlier view as well as going by the rejection of challenge by this Court, affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeals preferred by the University. 12. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the State has now preferred the present appeals. 13. The challenge which was raised by the State stood rejected by this Court and, as such, we cannot permit any fresh challenge. 14. We have, however, considered the submissions advanced by all the learned counsel. 12. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the State has now preferred the present appeals. 13. The challenge which was raised by the State stood rejected by this Court and, as such, we cannot permit any fresh challenge. 14. We have, however, considered the submissions advanced by all the learned counsel. In our view the matter is very clear. All the concerned teachers would not be entitled to any financial benefit as regards period prior to 5.8.2008. However, the length of service put in by each one of them has to be reckoned in order to place the concerned teacher at the relevant level in the applicable pay scale after giving the benefit of that service in terms of Career Advancement Scheme. At the same time, the length of service put in prior to 5.8.2008 shall also have to be reckoned in order to compute the pensionable service as well as the benefits accruable therefrom. 15. A submission was, however, advanced by Ms. Pinky Anand, Additional Solicitor General that the pension scheme being contributory, the teachers would not be entitled to any such benefit. This part of the matter was also gone into by the Single Judge and the observations in that behalf were:- "It is more so when according to the petitioners, University was deducting contribution towards pension. If the contribution towards pension was deducted for entire length of service, how the benefit out of it can be denied by the University. As per Regulation 47 of the Regulations of 1990, the University is under an obligation to keep the funds separately so as to utilise subsequently for retiral benefits. It seems that the contribution, if deducted towards pension, has been utilised for other purposes though not even permissible. It was expected of the University to use the funds for which deduction, if any, has been made." 16. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the matters. We affirm the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan and dismiss these appeals. No costs. 17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.