JUDGMENT : Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The defects pointed out by the Registry in some of the appeals are over-ruled. 2. In some of the appeals, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed for condonation of delay. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeals is condoned. 4. The present batch of appeals led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2016 Sunil Kumar Ojha vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur arise out of the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and other connected matters came to be decided on different dates by the learned Single Judge i.e. on 30.08.2018, 17.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 14.08.2018, 14.02.2019 & 14.11.2018. Since the common question of law and fact is involved in all these matters, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts which are required to be noted for deciding the controversy are that respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator in the appellant- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.N.V University’) on different dates through the placement agency. Since, the respondents-petitioners had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested for regularizing their services in the University but their services were not regularised. 5. In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 & 26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the services of six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion to the petitioners in the University on contractual/daily wage basis. The said Sub-Committee recommended for regularization of their services. The said recommendation was confirmed in a Meeting of the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, the respondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University on 28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees were confirmed and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the same was not agreed to by the University. Once again, the respondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University on 28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees were confirmed and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the same was not agreed to by the University. It is noted that the University Administration vide its Notification dated 27.10.2017 sought information in a prescribed proforma from different departments regarding persons rendering the services on contract basis, probably with a view to regularise their services. However, when the grievances of the respondents petitioners were not redressed, separate writ petitions were filed before this Court and the same were allowed by various Single Benches of this Court directing the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents-petitioners with all consequential benefits. 6. To complete the factual matrix, it is also relevant to mention that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employees were allowed by the learned Single Benches and the appeals preferred by the University against the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In some of the cases, even the Special Leave Petitions filed by the University before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also dismissed. The details of the same are reproduced below in tabular form:- 1. JITENDRA KUMAR (PEON/CHOWKIDAR) S.No Type of Case Case No. Appellant Vs Respondent Date of Decision Status 1 SBCWP 8660/2011 Jitendra Kumar Vs JNVU 13.12.2013 Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner 2 DBSAW 354/2014 JNVU Vs Jitendra Kumar 18.07.2014 Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed 3 SLP 30831/2014 JNVU Vs Jitendra Kumar 24.11.2014 SLP filed by Respondent University dismissed 4 WCP 84/2014 Jitendra Kumar Vs Mukesh Choudhary & Anr. 26.10.2016 21.11.2016 Contempt allowed appointment as well as arrear of payments of due given to the employee on 24.10.2016. 2. DR. VIKRANT SHARMA (LDC) S.No Type of Case Case No. Appellant Vs Respondent Date of Decision Status 1 SBCWP 75/2015 Dr. Vikrant Sharma Vs JNVU 03.08.2016 Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner 2 DBSAW 7/2017 JNVU Vs Dr. Vikrant Sharma 21.02.2017 Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed 3 SLP 1534/2018 JNVU Vs Dr. Vikrant Sharma 09.04.2018 SLP filed by Respondent University before Supreme Court dismissed 4 WCP 539/2017 Dr. Vikrant Sharma Vs Bhanwar Singh Sandu 19.07.2018 09.04.2021 Pending Appoint order dated 18.08.2018 3. Vikrant Sharma 21.02.2017 Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed 3 SLP 1534/2018 JNVU Vs Dr. Vikrant Sharma 09.04.2018 SLP filed by Respondent University before Supreme Court dismissed 4 WCP 539/2017 Dr. Vikrant Sharma Vs Bhanwar Singh Sandu 19.07.2018 09.04.2021 Pending Appoint order dated 18.08.2018 3. DEEPAK DAVE (PEON) S.No Type of Case Case No. Appellant Vs Respondent Date of Decision Status 1 SBCWP 13750/2015 Deepak Dave Vs JNVU 13.12.2017 Allowed in terms of Jitendra Kumar & appointment was given on 12.01.2018. No Appeal was filed by Respondent University Appointment order dated 12.01.2018 2 WCP 601/2018 Deepak Dave Vs Pk Sharma & Anr. 01.05.2018 Pending 4. KHAMA RAM VISHNOI (ASSISTANT COORDINATOR) 5. PREM CHAND MEHTA (ASSISTANT CUM ACCOUNTANT) 6. NARENDRA SURANA (STENO CUM TYPIST) S.No Type of Case Case No. Appellant Vs Respondent Date of Decision Status 1 SBCWP 1316/2015 1317/2015 832/2015 Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana Vs JNVU 08.10.2018 Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner 2 DBSAW 574/2019 574/2019 574/2019 JNVU Vs Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana 15.07.2019 07.08.2019 07.08.2019 Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed 3 SLP 11495/2020 8510/2020 11494/2020 JNVU Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana 14.10.2020 18.08.2020 14.10.2020 SLP filed by Respondent University before Supreme Court dismissed 4 WCP 406/2019 393/2019 468/2019 Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana Ayub Khan 19.02.2021 Pending 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Mr. P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are unjust, improper and incorrect as the respondents-petitioners were given appointment through the placement agency and as such, there was no master-servant relationship between the appellant-University and the respondents-petitioners. Thus, there was no question for the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents (petitioners, more so, when the placement agency was not arrayed as party respondent. He further contended that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the University and the State which provides that the State is the final authority for creation of posts and filling up the vacancies and since the State was not arrayed as party respondent in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties also. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-University argued that the respondents-petitioners were employed through placement agency, therefore, they cannot be termed as the employees of the appellant-University and there was no question of regularizing their services on the posts as mentioned above. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Dayalal reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 . 10. The learned counsel implored the Court that the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 03.08.2016 is having no similarity with the case of the present respondents-petitioners as Dr. Vikrant Sharma – petitioner therein was appointed by the University and not through the contractor/placement agency and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error while considering the case of respondent spetitioners on the ground of parity with the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents petitioners were not appointed on the sanctioned strength of posts and since they were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength of the regular employees, their case cannot be considered for regularization. He argued that while deciding the case of Deepak Dave (supra), the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the law laid down in the case of Ramavtar Sharma and Ors. vs. RSRTC and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) WLC (Raj) 112 and instead relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 13.12.2013. 11. Shri P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently argued that in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that observations made in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi cannot be made applicable in every case and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error while giving a direction of regularization to the appellant-University in the present case. 12. The applications preferred by the State of Rajasthan for impleading as party-respondent were allowed. Shri Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-University and submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error while passing the order of regularization in favour of the respondents-petitioners. 13. 12. The applications preferred by the State of Rajasthan for impleading as party-respondent were allowed. Shri Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-University and submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error while passing the order of regularization in favour of the respondents-petitioners. 13. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents-petitioners supported the judgment delivered by the learned Single Bench in their favour on the ground that respondents-petitioners are serving the appellant-University for almost 15-30 years on different posts. They submitted that the respondents-petitioners are rendering their services for such a long period shows that there is a perennial nature of work and the University is functioning in full vigour and strength, therefore, not regularizing the services of the respondents-petitioners, is nothing but jeopardizing their future and livelihood as the sword of disengagement and termination will always hang on their head. They further submitted that not regularizing the services of the respondents-petitioners is not only unfair and unreasonable but, the same can be termed as unfair labour practice also. The learned counsels have further submitted that the continuance of the respondents-petitioners in service for almost 15-30 years shows that University is not only in need of their services, but their services have also been found to be satisfactory. They submitted that the appellant-University regularized the services of similarly placed employees way back in the year 1999 and thereafter, different judgments have been passed in the case of the similarly situated employees. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that on the same lines, relief may be extended to the respondents-petitioners and the appeals may be dismissed as has been done in the cases of Jitendra Kumar, Vikrant Sharma, Khema Ram Bishnoi, Premchand Mehta and Narendra Surana. 14. It is further submitted that challenge to the Division Bench judgments passed by this Court have been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petitions filed by the appellant-University have been dismissed. They submitted that the University took up the matter by collecting the information of the respondents-petitioners for regularization, but the same has not been culminated into the orders passed for regularization in their cases. Learned counsel have relied upon the judgments passed by this Court for extending the similar benefits in their cases. They submitted that the University took up the matter by collecting the information of the respondents-petitioners for regularization, but the same has not been culminated into the orders passed for regularization in their cases. Learned counsel have relied upon the judgments passed by this Court for extending the similar benefits in their cases. They also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 358, Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Anr. AIR 2015 SC 347, ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. AIR 2015 SCW 2866 , Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 1229, Sheo Narian Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2018 SC 233 . 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings, written submissions as well as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties. 16. The admitted facts in the present case are that appellant – (Jodhpur University, erstwhile) now Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur was established in the year 1962 and even today thousands of students are enrolled and undergoing studies in different disciplines. The respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts as mentioned above on different dates and they are still serving the appellant-University till date. Most of the respondents-petitioners have rendered almost 15-30 years of service. It is also worth noticing that services of some of the similarly situated employees were regularized by the University in the year 1999. Since the University itself had taken up the cases for regularization of some of the employees on its own, therefore, there is no reason for the appellant-University in not extending the same benefit in the case of respondents-petitioners. We also note that the respondents-petitioners are serving the appellant- University for a considerable period of time (almost 15-30 years) and the sword of uncertainty cannot be allowed to hang on their head. The learned counsel for the appellant-University failed to distinguish the case of the present respondents-petitioners from the cases of the persons in whose favour, the judgments have been rendered by this Court and against the said judgments, Special Leave Petitions have also been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellant-University failed to distinguish the case of the present respondents-petitioners from the cases of the persons in whose favour, the judgments have been rendered by this Court and against the said judgments, Special Leave Petitions have also been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is also noticed that the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-University were already taken note of by this Court in the earlier judgments and, therefore, there is no reason for us to take a different view in the present batch of appeals. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the respondents-petitioners are entitled to the same relief as extended in favour of Jitendra Kumar and Ors. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant-University submitted that there is no direct relationship between the respondents-petitioners and the University. It is noticed that the respondents-petitioners are directly serving under the University administration and they are directly under the command and control of the appellant- University. The continuance of respondents-petitioners in service for a period of 15-30 years shows the perennial nature of work and since there are no complaints/adverse remarks pointed out by the appellant-University against respondents-petitioners, it can be deemed that the services rendered by the respondents-petitioners are satisfactory. Thus, we are of the view that even as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 , the services of the respondents-petitioners are liable to be regularized. As far as the argument with respect to the number of persons working in the University on contractual/daily wage basis is outnumbering the sanctioned posts in the University is concerned, Mr. Singh frankly submitted that services of the respondents-petitioners are being utilized by them without an exception which shows that there is sufficient amount of work to justify the appointment of the respondents-petitioners. 18. On a pointed query being raised to the counsel for the appellant, he submitted that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against any of the respondents-petitioners and their conduct is found to be satisfactory. 19. 18. On a pointed query being raised to the counsel for the appellant, he submitted that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against any of the respondents-petitioners and their conduct is found to be satisfactory. 19. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant- University of non-joinder of the State of Rajasthan as party respondent is noted to be rejected for the reason that in some of the cases, the State of Rajasthan has been arrayed as respondent. Even otherwise, it is the responsibility of the appellant-University to take necessary sanction/clearance from the State of Rajasthan for regularization of the respondents-petitioners as their services are being utilized in the University for almost 2-3 decades. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case as the similarly situated persons have been regularized by the University and in other cases, this Court has already pronounced the judgments by various orders which have been affirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 was pleased to observed as under :- 22.1. The normal Rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal Rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their conterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization.” 21. We are also of the view that since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents petitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated and working in the organization should not be dragged in the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as the employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court of law. 22. Our opinion in the preceding para is fortified by the observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in somewhat similar case titled as Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021) decided on 26.07.2021 has also held as under:- 13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being given the benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case (supra). The right of the Respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court. 23. In view of the discussions made above, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Benches. The appeals, being bereft of merit, are hereby dismissed.