Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2069 (RAJ)

Khama Ram Vishnoi v. Jai Narayan Vyas University

2018-10-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 23.07.2013 (Annex-21) passed by the respondent University may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent University be directed to absorb the petitioner in the regular cadre and confer him the regular pay scale and regularize his service in accordance with the decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 6.10.2005, with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of these cases, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioners have been appointed by a regular process of selection on the post of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant-cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta). The petitioners were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement of the year 2015 on different dates i.e. vide orders dated 11.01.1995 (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), dated 04.08.1990 (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) and dated 18.11.1991 (petitioner-Narendra Surana). 3. The MBM Engineering College, Jodhpur, after approval being taken from the University, sent a proposal to the Department of Science to establish the Entrepreneurship Development Cell (EDC) in the MBM Engineering College. After the said proposal having been sanctioned, the advertisement was issued to recruit the incumbents, like the present petitioners, and these were the sanctioned posts to run the project and formed part and parcel of the Core Staff, which is requisite for each Entrepreneurship Development Cell in the beginning. 4. The petitioners were being paid the fixed salary and thereafter representations were made to the Registrar of the University in the year 2003, after almost eight years of their appointment, that they should be regularized and should be conferred the regular pay scales. Thereafter, the Syndicate passed a Resolution on 24.11.2004 for constituting a committee for regularization of the work-charge employees, including the employees of the Entrepreneurship Development Cell. 5. Thereafter, the Syndicate passed a Resolution on 24.11.2004 for constituting a committee for regularization of the work-charge employees, including the employees of the Entrepreneurship Development Cell. 5. Thereafter, the resolution was passed vide Annexure-10 dated 06.10.2005 to regularize the services of the work-charge employees working in the Building Cell of the University, which was Agenda Item No.21, Resolution No.55/2005 dated 06.10.2005. The Syndicate also corrected the resolution by incorporating the word "EDC" after the word "Building Cell", both in the consideration as well as the resolution. 6. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor called upon the Entrepreneurship Development Cell to send the details of the employees working in the said Cell for the purpose of their regularization, whereupon the necessary details were sent by the Entrepreneurship Development Cell on 23.05.2007. However, the decision was not taken and representations were made regularly by the petitioners for granting them regular pay scale, while regularizing their services. 7. In these circumstances, apprehending termination of services, one of the petitioners, namely, Narendra Surana filed a writ petition bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1424/2009 before this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 05.09.2011, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Thereafter, the respondents finally passed an order on 23.07.2013 holding that since there had been no sanctioned post, therefore, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized. However, they shall continue to work in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell on the aforesaid posts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are claiming regularization of their services and regular pay scales, as they are substantive employees, upon their appointment being made through a regular process of selection and as per the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Das Vs. State of U.P., (1981) AIR SC 41, relevant paras 9, 11, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 32 of which read as under: "9. So, the order of appointment to the Service is decisive of seniority and the service horoscope of each Assistant Engineer has to be cast with reference to his appointment order. The next question then, is, when is an engineer appointed to the Service? So, the order of appointment to the Service is decisive of seniority and the service horoscope of each Assistant Engineer has to be cast with reference to his appointment order. The next question then, is, when is an engineer appointed to the Service? When, under the Rules, he becomes a member of the Service. For. until he gains entry into the Service he cannot claim to be appointed to it. To hover around with prospects of entry is not the same as actual entry. Therefore, we have to examine when an engineer becomes a member of the Service under the Rules. Clause (b) of Rule 3 defines 'Member of the Service' to mean a government servants 'appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of these rules.. to a post in the cadre Of the Service.' What, then, is the cadre of the Service? What do we mean by appointment in a substantive capacity to a post in the cadre? Can there be a temporary post included in the cadre? Here, r. 1 becomes relevant. Rule 4 prescribes the sanctioned strength of the cadre. It provides that the government may, subject to the provisions of r. 40 of the Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 increase the cadre by creating permanent or temporary posts from time to time as may be found necessary.' So a cadre post can be permanent or temporary and if an engineer were appointed substantively to a temporary or permanent post he becomes a member of the Service. The touchstone then, is the substantive capacity of the appointment. Here we get into service jargon with slippery semantics and flavoured officialese. 11. Be that as it may, the sources of recruitment are 4- fold. The Thomson College appointments were formally stopped by a G. O. Of 1950. Another big change took place. Direct recruitment, routed through the Public Service Commission was introduced in 1961. The rules of procedure for direct recruitment and kindred matters are provided by an office Memorandum of December 1961 which we will consider more closely as they bear upon the crucial controversy. 20. What is significant to know its that Govt. decided in 1961 to resort to direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers through competitive examinations held by the Public Service Commission. 20. What is significant to know its that Govt. decided in 1961 to resort to direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers through competitive examinations held by the Public Service Commission. It was, however, alive to the fact that massive appointments had already been made, in the years gone by, to the posts of Asst. Engineers from among graduates in engineering by direct selection and later approval by the Public Service Commission apart from Thomson College graduates in engineering. The Government was also aware of the promotional claims of those in the subordinate services. Moreover, there were vacancies permanent and temporary and there were appointees, permanent and temporary. The equities of the situation had to be taken Dote of because Government could not, without being guilty of cruel snobbery relegate all those, except direct recruits, from among degree-holders by competitive examinations through the Public Service Commission, to a secondary status. In this holistic view it was that the office Memorandum, dated December 7, 1961 was promulgated. We extract it because its import and impact are decisive to an extent of the fate of the cases before us: The principles regulating selection for recruitment to permanent and temporary posts of Assistant Engineers in the various State Engineering Services have been under the consideration of Government for some time past and after thorough consideration the Governor is pleased to order that in future direct recruitment to both permanent and temporary vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Civil, Electrical and Mechanical) in the Public Works, Irrigation and Local Self-Government Engineering Departments will be made on the results of competitive examinations to be conducted by the Public Service Commission. Candidates possessing technical and other qualifications prescribed in the rules for the Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers in the Departments concerned will be eligible to appear at the examination for that particular service. 2. Successful candidates in order of merit will subject to the relevant rules regarding physical fitness and other matters. be appointed directly on probation against vacant permanent posts and those following will be appointed against temporary posts. 3. All vacancies in the permanent cadre in the Irrigation and Local Self-Government Engineering Departments in a particular year will be pooled and filled as follows: (a) 50 per cent by direct recruitment through competitive examination. (b) 20 per cent by promotion from subordinate services. 3. All vacancies in the permanent cadre in the Irrigation and Local Self-Government Engineering Departments in a particular year will be pooled and filled as follows: (a) 50 per cent by direct recruitment through competitive examination. (b) 20 per cent by promotion from subordinate services. (c) 30 per cent by selection from amongst temporary Assistant Engineers recruited through the Public Service Commission. xx xx xx However, as measure of concession to the existing temporary Assistant Engineers who were recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers on the advice of the Public Service Commission prior to the introduction of this scheme for the time being distribution of vacancies in the permanent cadre of Assistant Engineers will be as follows: (a) 30 per cent by direct recruitment through competitive examination (25 per cent for the Public Works Department), (b) 20 per cent by promotion from subordinate service (25 per cent for the Public Works Department), (c) 50 per cent by selection from amongst existing temporary Assistant Engineers who were recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers through the Public Service Commission. The distribution of vacancies in the permanent cadre in the above manner will be subject to the condition that the Governor in consultation with the Public Service Commission, may, for special reasons. increase or decrease the percentage fixed for recruitment by selection and competitive examination in any particular year. The candidates selected on the results of competitive examination and appointed against permanent vacancies shall be placed on probation for a period of 3 years. However, in the case of such directly recruited candidates who have served as Assistant Engineers in a particular department in temporary capacity, continuous period of temporary service rendered as Assistant Engineer immediately before selection for permanent post of Assistant Engineer may be allowed to count towards this period of probation. The candidates will not be required to possess one year's practical experience, prescribed in the existing rules for recruitment of Assistant Engineers as a pre- requisite qualification for recruitment of Assistant Engineer in the various departments. The period of practical experience will be covered by the period of probation. During the probationary period candidates will be required to pass the Departmental Examination prescribed by the various departments. Probationers may be confirmed subject to passing these examinations and their work continuing to be satisfactory. The period of practical experience will be covered by the period of probation. During the probationary period candidates will be required to pass the Departmental Examination prescribed by the various departments. Probationers may be confirmed subject to passing these examinations and their work continuing to be satisfactory. Temporary and officiating Assistant Engineers possessing the requisite technical qualifications will be eligible to appear in the competitive examination. The maximum age limit in the case of those working in the department with the approval of the Commission or after having been recruited by the Commission will be 40 years. Plan and the syllabus of the competitive examination will be as shown in Appendix 'A' enclosed with these orders. There is more of this maze of rules and notifications but we desist from bringing them on record since they have not much bearing on the ultimate result. We must emphasise that while temporary and permanent posts have, great relevancy in regard to the career of government servants, keeping posts temporary for long, sometimes by annual renewals for several years, and denying the claims of the incumbents on the score that their posts are temporary makes no sense and strikes us as arbitrary, especially when both temporary and permanent appointees are functionally identified. If, in the normal course, a post is temporary in the real sense and the appointee knows that his tenure cannot exceed the post in longevity, there cannot be anything unfair or capricious in clothing him with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for certain departmental or like purposes, declared temporary, but it is within the ken of both the government and the appointee that the temporary posts are virtually long-lived. It is irrational to reject the claim of the 'temporary' appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We must also express emphatically that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncements is that officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis. It is irrational to reject the claim of the 'temporary' appointee on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We must also express emphatically that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncements is that officiating service in a post is for all practical purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits, for government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categories and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts. While rules regulating conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under proviso to Article 309, even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. 22. Right in the beginning, we have indicated that r. 23 is of spinal significance, and for purposes of seniority, one has to go by the order of appointment to the Service in a substantive capacity. It is difficult to overlook r. 23 or slur over the expression 'substantive capacity'. But we cannot attribute fixed connotations to expressions like 'substantive capacity', 'service', 'Cadre' and the like because we find that probation even for temporary appointees is provided for in the rules which means that even temporary appointments can be substantive. For, there cannot be probation for a government servant who is not to be absorbed substantively in the Service on completion thereof. With this background, if we approach the scheme unfolded by the Office Memorandum of December 1961 superimposed on the 1936 Rules, we get three categories of Assistant Engineers and a fixation of the proportion among them. Firstly, there are to be direct recruits through open competition held by the Public Service Commission. 50% of the posts will go to them although it is stated that the vacancies are to be "in that permanent cadre". Secondly, the subordinate services will get 20% by promotion and thirdly, 30% will belong to the temporary Assistant Engineers recruited through the Public Service Commission in the past. 50% of the posts will go to them although it is stated that the vacancies are to be "in that permanent cadre". Secondly, the subordinate services will get 20% by promotion and thirdly, 30% will belong to the temporary Assistant Engineers recruited through the Public Service Commission in the past. The office Memorandum makes it clear that direct recruitments will be made to "both permanent and temporary vacancies of Assistant Engineers". But this scheme of 1961 cannot stand in isolation and has to be read as subordinate to the 1936 Rules. After all, the 1961 Memorandum cannot override the Rules which are valid under Art. 313, and so must be treated as filling the gaps, not flouting the provisions. So, read, what is the eventual conclusion? 24. We are free to confess that the rules, stricking divergent notes, like ill-tuned cymbals, have vexed us a while. The touchstone of valid interpretation being the Constitution and harmonisation of rules with fundamental rights being the proper path we have tried to sensitize the provisions to do equal justice under the law refusing to petrify r. 23 or the other relevant rules we have referred to Rule 4 of the 1936 Rules clearly contemplates a cadre, as covering "permanent or temporary posts". So, a cadre takes in temporary posts. Once we cease to be allergic to 'temporary posts' as a component of a cadre we reach the next step that a cadre is, as it were, a layer in the Service. Rule 4 itself, while dealing with the strength of the cadre, speaks of a holder of a post in a cadre as a member of the Service may be the holder of a temporary or a permanent post. 28. We do not consider it right or necessary to fix the seniority vis-a-vis the date of appointment of the various parties, as that is the administrative function of Government. Nor do we think we should interfere with the order of the High Court setting aside the seniority list of 1969. A fresh list has anyway to be prepared but the more meaningful judicial exercise is to lay down the correct principles and guidelines, free from discriminatory infirmities and fairly in keeping with the extant Service Rules. Nor do we think we should interfere with the order of the High Court setting aside the seniority list of 1969. A fresh list has anyway to be prepared but the more meaningful judicial exercise is to lay down the correct principles and guidelines, free from discriminatory infirmities and fairly in keeping with the extant Service Rules. The Rules are, we make it clear, those made in 1936 under the Government of India Act, 1919 and continued by force of Art. 313 of the Constitution. Changes wrought by orders and instructions such as the 1961 Memorandum cannot over-ride the Rules themselves but will operate subject to them in case of inconsistency. Even an Administration of Inaction Unlimited must remember that a systematic set of Service Rules is vital not only in fulfillment of its constitutional obligation under the proviso to Art. 309 but also to keep the morale and to promote contentment among the Civil Services by eliminating the 'inglorious uncertainties' about career prospects which cut at the root of planned living. So we hope that, what with two expert committee reports slumbering in the Secretariat cells, Government will frame rules, tuned to the finer notes of Art. 16 and other mandates and in consonance with the realities obtaining in this and sister services, after hearing affected sides as a stroke of fair-play and without being file-logged for long. We hold that r. 23 is the relevant mariner's compass when a question of seniority arises. Deducing there from we get the further guideline that the order of appointment in a substantive capacity is the significant starting point for reckoning seniority. 32. Once we understand 'substantive capacity' in the above sense, we may be able to rationalise the situation. If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantive capacity." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 265 , relevant paras 12 to 14 of which read as under:- "12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 265 , relevant paras 12 to 14 of which read as under:- "12. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi's case and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka and Others. v. M.L. Kesari and Others., (2010) 9 SCC 247 , this Court held as under: "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3) , if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." 13. Applying the ratio of Umadevi's case, this Court in Nihal Singh and Others. v. State of Punjab and Others., (2013) 14 SCC 65 directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: "35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is-the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks." 14. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bear any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularization viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of Clerk was regularized w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 03.1.2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits be paid from 01.01.2010." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Dr.Vijay Pareek Vs. The Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur & Another. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Dr.Vijay Pareek Vs. The Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur & Another. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9889/2008 decided on 06.01.2014), wherein the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer in connection with a Project in Adult Education Programme sanctioned by the UGC and was working at Mohan Lal Sukhadia University in the aforesaid project. This Hon'ble Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner in service as Project Officer with effect from 11.01.1985 with all consequential benefits. The said order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.440/2014 (Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Vs. Dr. Vijay Pareek decided on 20.05.2014), relevant portion of which reads as under: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the entire record of the case. Moreso, we have perused the judgment impugned. Undisputedly, the respondent petitioner was appointed on a fixed pay of Rs. 1000/- on 10.3.1981 and later on, he was given regular pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 and his services were transferred by the Vice Chancellor of the University in the Adult Education Programme against the post of Project Officer vide order dated 11.1.1985 and his pay scale was further revised on 27.6.1990 and later on, the State Government sanctioned the post of Project Officer with effect from 1.4.1997. In view of above fact, obviously, the respondent petitioner is working in the University since 1981 but his services are not regularized till 2008. On the basis of above facts, when the services were not regularized then there was no option left with the respondent petitioner but to file writ petition before this court for seeking direction to regularize his services. On the basis of above facts, when the services were not regularized then there was no option left with the respondent petitioner but to file writ petition before this court for seeking direction to regularize his services. The learned Single Judge of this court while following the judgment rendered in Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt's case so also the case of Uma Devi held that the respondent petitioner is entitled for regularization on the post of Project Officer with effect from 11.1.1985, the day on which the Vice Chancellor transferred him from the Population Studies Cell to the Adult Education Programme against the post of Project Officer, which was duly sanctioned by the U.G.C. In our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge of this court because in identical situation, the Division Bench of this Court in DBCSA No.927/2011 filed by the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.8358/2009 dt.5.7.2011, gave the following directions while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: "We have perused the appeals as also the impugned order dated 5.7.2011 and heard counsel for the appellants. In appeals, the grounds of challenge are that the predecessor university of the appellant university, i.e. the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, had not been made a party in the writ petitions and that in any event of the matter, the suitability of the respondent had not been considered by the university. It was further submitted that in any event, appointment was to be regularized under the Rules appellant university and that no sanctioned post being available, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of regularization with effect from the initial date of entry in service with consequent benefits, as allowed by the learned Single Judge. It was further submitted that in any event, appointment was to be regularized under the Rules appellant university and that no sanctioned post being available, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of regularization with effect from the initial date of entry in service with consequent benefits, as allowed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the preliminary objection with regard to non-impleadment of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner being fatal to whole case of the respondent herein, is without substance inasmuch as that the respondent had not sought any relief against the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and mere reliance on the Resolution of Board of Management of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner passed on 22.1.1998, which had been adopted by the appellant University under its notification dated 4 /6t h January, 2000, did not make the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner either a necessary or even a proper party. So far as the question of regularization of ad hoc employee is concerned, the respondent Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt had admittedly been working on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer with the appellant University and its predecessor university i.e. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, for the last about 32 years and the appellant University had itself, in terms of the order dated 20.4.2011, found the respondent to be entitled for regularization. The question of suitability of the respondent, thus, cannot be a subject matter of any argument in this appeal and only question which remains is: whether the respondent was entitled to regularization effective from the date of his initial entry into service? On the above issue, we are of the view that a plain reading of the resolution dated 22.2.1998 passed by the Board of Management of erstwhile Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, as adopted by the appellant University under its notification dated 4/6th January, 2000, entitles the respondent to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. We are also of the view that the argument of the appellant in the present appeals that there was no sanctioned post of Assistant Agriculture Officer with the appellant university, is of no consequence as a bare look at the reply filed in SBCWP No.8358/2009 indicates that no such ground had been taken therein. We are also of the view that the argument of the appellant in the present appeals that there was no sanctioned post of Assistant Agriculture Officer with the appellant university, is of no consequence as a bare look at the reply filed in SBCWP No.8358/2009 indicates that no such ground had been taken therein. Further the case before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the right of regularization of an employee having worked for about 33 years in the context of the resolution/notifications referred above. Thus, to our mind, in the facts of the case, it was incumbent upon the appellant university to have acted post-haste and taken proceedings for regularization of service of the respondent. Admittedly, no such proceedings were taken for several years until the respondent approached this court, first time in the year 2009 aggrieved of his non-consideration for regularisation. It is trite that no party can take advantage of its own wrong. Reference in this regard be made to the case in HSIDC vs. Hari Om Getagnies, (2009) 16 SCC 208 as also Priyanka Overseas Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others., (1991) Supp1 SCC 102, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated this equitable proposition. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the appellant University had failed to take action on the resolution of the Board of Management of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner dated 22.1.1998 as adopted by it vide notification dated 4/6th January 2000 where under the respondent was entitled for consideration for regularization relating back to his initial entry into service. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely correct in placing reliance on the resolution and the notification referred above and in directing that on being found suitable for regularisation, the respondent was entitled to regularisation with reference to his initial date of entry into service with the department as Assistant Agriculture Officer on or about 06.3.1978 with all consequential benefits. On the issue of regularisation of ad hoc employee, the issue stands resolved in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , wherein following the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Uma Devi" casts a duty upon the government and its instrumentalities concerned to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit of protection of any interim order of the court/tribunal. In para 11 of the Kesri judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also reiterated that the object behind directions in Uma Devi's case was to ensure that those who have put-in more than ten years continuous service without protection of any interim order of court or tribunal before the date of decision in Uma Devi's case, are entitled to be considered for regularisation in view of long service. To our mind, these directions were apparently on very exceptional and strong equitable considerations, which also obtain in the present case. It is not in dispute that respondent had worked for more than ten years (about 32 years) without protection of any interim order or direction of any court or tribunal prior to Uma Devi's case. For this reason also, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely legal and liable to be sustained. Consequently, having considered the matter, we find that the appeals are without merit and are dismissed accordingly." Similarly, while upholding the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.33784-33785/2011 "Maharana Pratap University vs. Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt and dismissing the SLP of the University on 20.7.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity requiring interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the respondent had continuously worked as an adhoc Assistant Agriculture Officer for almost 32 years before his case was considered for regularization and that too in compliance of the direction given by the High Court. During this period, he was given regular pay scale as revised from time to time. Therefore, there was no impediment in the regularization of his service with retrospective effect. During this period, he was given regular pay scale as revised from time to time. Therefore, there was no impediment in the regularization of his service with retrospective effect. With the above observations, the special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed." We have considered the entire case from every angle. In our opinion, the employer cannot refuse regularization for years together and in case of Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the employer cannot withhold the benefit of regularization without any reason. In the present case, the appellant University is not disputing that the post of Project Officer was sanctioned with effect from 11.1.1985 by the UGC and thereafter by the State Government but in-spite of the fact that the sanction was issued by the UGC earlier and subsequently by the State Government, the University did not consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of the petitioner on the post of Project Officer. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and gave clear cut finding that even if the petitioner is not entitled for regularization on the post of teacher but entitled for regularization on the post of Project Officer upon which he was granted appointment under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University, therefore, in our opinion, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post of Project Officer with effect from 11.1.1985 with all consequential benefits, does not require any interference because the petitioner is going to be retired from service and still, his services are not regularized. In view of the above, this special appeal is hereby dismissed. Likewise, the stay petition is also dismissed." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Another. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8358/2009 decided on 05.07.2011), wherein also, the petitioner was working on ad hoc basis and after taking the resolution to regularize his services, which is also existing in the present case, the regularization was not made. The said writ petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. Relevant para 17 of the judgment reads as under:- "17. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8358/2009 decided on 05.07.2011), wherein also, the petitioner was working on ad hoc basis and after taking the resolution to regularize his services, which is also existing in the present case, the regularization was not made. The said writ petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. Relevant para 17 of the judgment reads as under:- "17. In the instant case, although at the time of passing interim order on 22.3.2011 a prayer was made by the University that the University is taking necessary steps for conducting job-test and interview as decided by the University while passing the resolution in post; but, again, after adjudging suitability of the petitioner the University authorities passed order treating the petitioner's regularisation in service to be a case for fresh regular appointment which has again created one more dispute, for which, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing one more writ petition. Such type of attitude is not proper. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's case stands upon sound grounds and cogent reasons to get the benefit of regularization after being adjudged suitable from the date of his initial appointment. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the above writ petitions are hereby allowed in the following terms: (A) Order dated 20.4.2011, Annex. 4 to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2011, is modified to the extent of providing appointment with immediately effect in terms that respondents are directed to grant all service benefits to the petitioner consequent to regularisation from the date of initial entry in the service. (B) The respondents are directed to grant benefit of revised pay scale rules promulgated by the State Government and followed by the respondent University from time to time and grant benefit to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (C) The respondents are directed to pay entire arrears to the petitioner within a period of six months after passing appropriate orders. This aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.927/2011. (C) The respondents are directed to pay entire arrears to the petitioner within a period of six months after passing appropriate orders. This aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.927/2011. 11.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that with regard to the fact of not having the sanctioned posts, the Hon'ble Division Bench also came to the conclusion that since having worked for more than 33 years and in the context of resolution passed by the University, which is existing in the present case as well, the incumbent was entitled for regularization in service. 11.2 The aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.07.2012 in Special Leave Petition No.33784-33785 of 2011, whereby the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology was dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Virendra Kumar Sharma and Others. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.279/2017 decided on 17.07.2018), whereby this Court, while allowing the said writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in JNV University, Jodhpur Vs. Jitendra Kumar (D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.354/2014 decided on 18.07.2014), directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners therein and pass appropriate suitable orders awarding them consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that the petitioners have been working for last more than 23 years with the respondent-University and had been discharging various duties including of Accountant Coordinator, Steno-cum-Typist, Assistant -cum- Accountant, and all these posts exist with the University also, and if the veil is lifted, they are working as the employees of the University, for which the resolution has also been passed by the Syndicate to regularize their services. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that neither the Entrepreneurship Development Cell was established by the competent authority of the respondents nor the petitioners were provided appointment by the competent authority of the respondents. 15. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that neither the Entrepreneurship Development Cell was established by the competent authority of the respondents nor the petitioners were provided appointment by the competent authority of the respondents. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the petitioners were employed in a project on ad hoc basis on a fixed remuneration and they were not provided appointment against any sanctioned posts by the State Government and the petitioners were working under the Entrepreneurship Development Cell, therefore, their services cannot be regularized. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the case of the petitioners for regularization was considered in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi , and since the petitioners were not found suitable for regularization in light of the said judgment, therefore, vide order dated 23.07.2013, their case for regularization was rejected. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the order dated 23.07.2013 to continue the services of the petitioners has been passed by the respondents, therefore, the salary of the petitioners is being disbursed. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, along with the precedent laws cited at the Bar. 19. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners have been discharging regular services on the posts of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant–cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta). The date of appointment of the three petitioners is 11.01.1995 (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), dated 04.08.1990 (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) and dated 18.11.1991 (petitioner-Narendra Surana). 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been able to demonstrate that the Entrepreneurship Development Cell in the MBM Engineering College was established after due sanction and the petitioners are regularly discharging services for last about 28 years. The resolutions passed by the Syndicate of the University on 24.11.2004 and further on 06.10.2005 also reflect that the Statutory Body of the University had considered the case for regularization and had allowed the same. 21. The precedent laws, as settled by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Dr. Vijay Pareek and Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt , have clearly reflected indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in directing regularization of the services of the persons working for last about 30 years. 22. 21. The precedent laws, as settled by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Dr. Vijay Pareek and Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt , have clearly reflected indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in directing regularization of the services of the persons working for last about 30 years. 22. The submission made on behalf of the respondents that the case for regularization has not been considered only on the ground that the University is not having sanctioned post, which has also been dealt with in the precedent law of Dr. Vijay Pareek whereby this Hon'ble Court had held that even when the sanctioned post was not there, the regularization had been permitted from the date of discharge of services by the incumbent. This submission of the respondents will not be able to lessen the strength of the petitioners' case as the resolution dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Syndicate of the University is already existing in their favour, and moreover, the respondents have not been able to dispute that the petitioners are continuously discharging their services. 23. The respondents have already taken a decision on 23.07.2013 that the job requirement of the petitioners is existing and the petitioners shall continue to draw the fixed pay scales and shall not be discontinued from the services. The long drawn continuous services of the petitioners ranging from 23 years to 28 years is a clear indication that the petitioners are discharging a regular work and ought to be given the benefit of regularization. 24. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed after due selection process pursuant to an advertisement and since they are continuously working against such posts and the respondents themselves have chosen to continue the petitioners in future also, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be regularized with effect from the initial date of their appointment. 25. In view of the above, the present writ petitions deserve to be accepted and the same are accordingly allowed and the respondent-University is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant-cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) from the initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits, including grant of selection scale, computation of pensionary period accordingly along with computation of pension and other benefits, which such regularization may give to the petitioners. The benefits shall be granted to the petitioners notionally upto the date when the first judgment of consideration was rendered by this Hon'ble Court on 05.09.2011, as aforementioned, and thereafter, the actual benefits shall be granted to them.