ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been moved with a prayer for regularization of the services of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant on 26.09.1989 firstly, for a period of 3 months. In pursuance to the said appointment order, she joined on 03.10.1989 and her services were extended from time to time till 11.06.1991 on which date, her services were discontinued. Against the said retrenchment of her services the petitioner preferred a writ petition in which an interim order was passed in her favour and she continued to serve. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 18.03.1998 with an observation that the petitioner should approach the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of her disputes. Further, while disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed for continuance of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner then moved before the Industrial Tribunal and vide award dated 08.11.2001, the Tribunal decided in favour of the petitioner. [The award dated 08.11.2001 which was not a part of the record earlier, has been permitted to be placed and taken on record today.] The Tribunal directed for reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent-University vide writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4815/2002) which was dismissed on 24.11.2012. The special appeal preferred by the respondent-University against the order dated 24.11.2012 was also dismissed on 21.03.2014. 4. Meanwhile, during the pendency of these proceedings, order dated 02.09.1994 was passed by the Registrar of the respondent-University to the effect that the petitioner would now be charged against the newly sanctioned post of Lab Assistant at the College of Home Science, Bikaner with immediate effect. The order reads as under : “The Vice – Chancellor is pleased to order that Mrs. Savita Nanda who is working as Lab. Assistant on casual basis in the College of Home Science, Bikaner and whose wages are paid from the College of Vety. & Animal Science, Bikaner is now be charged against the newly sanctioned post of Lab. Assistant at the College of Home Science, Bikaner with immediate effect.” 5. Savita Nanda who is working as Lab. Assistant on casual basis in the College of Home Science, Bikaner and whose wages are paid from the College of Vety. & Animal Science, Bikaner is now be charged against the newly sanctioned post of Lab. Assistant at the College of Home Science, Bikaner with immediate effect.” 5. When after having completed more than 20 years of service, the services of the petitioner were not regularized she preferred the present writ petition in the year 2010. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a clear case where the petitioner has served respondent-University right from the year 1989 till the year 2019 when she superannuated i.e. to say that she served for more than a period of 30 years. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the other High Courts from time to time her service deserves to be regularized. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments : 1. Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] 2. Ram Avtar Gurjar vs. The Chief Manager (IR), SBBJ (Rajasthan) [(2015) WLC (Raj.)(UC) 119] 3. Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ 2019 (10) SCC 516 ] 4. Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2017 (2) ESC 333] 5. Khama Ram Vishnoi vs. The Jai Narayan Vyas University through its Registrar & Ors. [ 2019 LIC 378 ] 7. Per contra counsel for the respondents submitted that the service of the petitioner could not have been regularized as she was not qualified for the post. Counsel argued that even if the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra) is to be applied in the present matter, it has to be first seen whether the appointment was a regular one or an illegal one. So far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned the same was an illegal one and therefore cannot be covered by the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra). Counsel also pointed out the Rules as approved by the University wherein, the qualification for the Lab Assistant is prescribed as : “17. Lab. Assistant (Science Graduate) (Non-Diploma) 610-1090 B.Sc. with Physics, Chemistry, Maths. 18. Lab. Assistant (Non-graduate) 490-840 Higher Secondary (Science) OR Secondary with Science having two years experience.” 8. Counsel also pointed out the Rules as approved by the University wherein, the qualification for the Lab Assistant is prescribed as : “17. Lab. Assistant (Science Graduate) (Non-Diploma) 610-1090 B.Sc. with Physics, Chemistry, Maths. 18. Lab. Assistant (Non-graduate) 490-840 Higher Secondary (Science) OR Secondary with Science having two years experience.” 8. Counsel argued that the petitioner was a student of Arts having Home Science as one of the subjects which cannot be termed to be a qualification as prescribed in the rules and therefore, she not being qualified at the inception only, her services cannot be regularized. Counsel further argued that in the earlier round of litigation also, the Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect and kept the question open therefore the University is at liberty to raise the ground in the present writ petition. 9. Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Gadilingappa & Ors. [ (2010) 2 SCC 728 ] and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr. [ (2010) 2 SCC 422 ]. 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Before adverting into the facts, it is essential to deal with the issue whether the question of qualification of the petitioner had been raised by the respondent-University in the earlier round of litigation or not. A perusal of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal makes it clear that the said ground was raised by respondent-University in unequivocal terms and the same was considered and adjudicated by the Tribunal in specific terms. A perusal of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal makes it clear that the said ground was raised by respondent-University in unequivocal terms and the same was considered and adjudicated by the Tribunal in specific terms. The ground raised by the respondent-University before the Tribunal was as follows : ^^4- vÁkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk mDr Dyse fooj.k dk Áfrokn djrs gq, vius tcko esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd ÁkfFkZuh dh ftl le; fu;qfDr dh x;h Fkh og Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in dh ;ksX;rk ugha j[krh Fkh vkSj rFkkdfFkr NaVuh dh fnukad 11&6&91 dks Hkh og ;ksX;rk ugha j[krh Fkh] ÁkfFkZuh us Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ds fy;s vkosnu Hkh ugha fd;k Fkk] mlus DydZ@fjlsI'kfuLV ds fy;s vkosnu fn;k Fkk] ÁkfFkZuh us lgh rF;ksa dks fNik;k gSA vU; lHkh rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g tcko fn;k gS fd ÁkfFkZuh dh fu;qfDr xyrh ls dh x;h Fkh vkSj og fu;qfDr ds ;ksX; o l{ke ugha Fkh] Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d dh tks ;ksX;rk,a foKkfir dh x;h Fkh mUgsa og iwjk ugha djrh Fkh] mldh ÁkjafHkd fu;qfDr gh xyr FkhA 12. Learned Tribunal considered and adjudicated the said ground in the following terms : 8- --------------------- gekjs le{k eq[; :i ls fopkj.kh; Á'u ;gh gS fd D;k vÁkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj ÁkfFkZuh x`gfoKku dkWyst esa Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d in ds fy;s ;ksX; ugha Fkh \ bl lEcU/k esa ge ns[krs gS fd fu;kstd i{k ,d vksj rks ;g dgrk gS fd ÁkfFkZuh us DydZ@fjlsIlfuLV in ds fy;s vkosnu fd;k Fkk ijUrq fu;kstd us mDr dfFkr vkosnu U;k;ky; ds le{k vius rdksZa dh iqf"V esa ÁLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vr% fu;kstd dk ;g rdZ cyghu o lkjghu ik;k tkrk gSA i{kdkjksa dh cgl ls ,d Lohd`r fLFkfr ;g Hkh lkeus vkrh gS fd ÁkfFkZuh dh fu;qfDr midqyifr dh vuqefr ls jftLVªkj us Án'kZ MCyw-4 ds ek/;e ls dh Fkh ftlesa ÁkfFkZuh dks Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij fu;qfDr djus dk mYys[k gS ,oe~ ÁkfFkZuh dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa ,oe~ Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ds fy;s vko';d 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA ;fn ÁkfFkZuh us DydZ@fjlsfIuLV in ds fy;s vkosnu fd;k Fkk rc fQj fcuk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij Án'kZ MCyw-4 }kjk D;ksa fu;qfDr dh xbZ bldk dksbZ dkj.k fu;kstd i{k us ugha crk;k gSA tcfd bl fLFkfr dks fu;kstd i{k ds lk{kh us Áfrijh{k.k esa Lohdkj fd;k gS ;g rF; Hkh fu;kstd ds i{k dks detksj cukrk gSA Án'kZ MCyw-4 ;g Hkh n'kkZrk gS fd ÁkfFkZuh dks x`gfoKku dkWyst esa fu;qfDr Ánku dh x;h gSA bl vkns'k Án'kZ Mcyw- 4 esa ÁkfFkZuh dh lsok mn;iqj ls Áfrfu;qfDr ij ysus dk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA ---------------------------------------------------- ,d vksj rks fu;kstd i{k ;g dgrk gS fd ÁkfFkZuh Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij dk;Zjr jgus gsrq okafNr ;ksX;rk /kkfjr ugha djrh gS ijUrq ge ns[krs gS fd ,slh fdlh Hkh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dk mYys[k ÁkfFkZuh dh lsok;sa tkjh u j[kus dh lwpuk Án'kZ MCyw-10 esa ugha gSA ÁkfFkZuh dks lsokeqDr djrs le; mldh lsokeqfDr dk dkj.k D;ksa ugha cryk;k x;k bldk Hkh dksbZ Li"V dkj.k fu;kstd us ugha fn;k gSA lsokeqfDr dk dfFkr dkj.k Án'kZ MCyw-15 ds }kjk ÁkfFkZuh dks lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oe~ mldk tcko Án'kZ MCyw-16 ÁkfFkZuh }kjk fn;s tkus ij mldh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ekurs gq, fu;kstd us ÁkfFkZuh dk lsokdky vkxs cढ+k;k gS tks rF; tkfgj djrk gS fd fu;kstd ÁkfFkZuh dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa ls larq"V FkkA ;fn Án'kZ ,e-2 esa in la 08 esa of.kZr vuqlkj ÁkfFkZuh Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ds fy;s ;ksX; ugha Fkh rks bldk mYys[k lsok eqfDr vkns'k Án'kZ MCyw 10 es D;ksa ugha fd;k x;kA ÁkfFkZuh dks Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij 3&10&89 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oe~ ml in ds fy;s 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fu/kkZfjr djus ckcr vkns'k Án'kZ ,e&2 1&12&90 dks tkjh fd;k x;k] ,slk vkns'k iwoZ ls gh dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ij ÁHkkoh ugha gks ldrkA fdlh deZpkjh dks fdlh in fo'ks"k ij fu;qfDr nsus ds i'pkr ml in fo'ks"k dk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk cnyrs gq, deZpkjh dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk iw.kZ :is.k vuqfpr ,oe~ voS/k gSA fu;kstd ;g ugha cryk ldk gS fd dyk Lukrd ,oe~ foKku Lukrd ds x`g foKku fo"k; esa D;k vUrj gS vkSj og vUrj Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds dk;Z ij fdl Ádkj vkSj D;k vlj Mkyrk gSA vr% fu;kstd dk ;g rdZ Hkh cyghu o lkjghu gS fd foKku esa Lukrd u gksdj dyk esa Lukrd gksus ds dkj.k x`g foKku esa Á;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ds fy;s v;ksX; gSA** 13. The said award of learned Tribunal was in challenge by way of a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed and further a special appeal against the same was also dismissed. A perusal of the judgment passed in the writ petition and even in the special appeal makes it clear that the findings as reached at by the Tribunal were affirmed with no concessions or distinctions. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal having become final for all purposes the same cannot be re-opened in the present matter. Once the finding having become final for all purposes, the natural consequence of the same would be the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was not an illegal one. 14. So far as the case of Gadilingappa (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is concerned, the same would not be applicable in the present matter as the Hon’ble Apex Court had, in that matter, reached to a specific finding that the respondents therein did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification and therefore, their appointments were termed to be illegal appointments. 15. Moresover, the rules as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents had been approved in the year 1998 whereas the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 and therefore, even if the said rules comprised of any educational qualification, the same could not be said to be applicable to the petitioner. The Rules which applied to the petitioner were the Rules of 1986 which were approved by the then Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. The qualification as prescribed in the Rules of 1986 for Lab Assistant (other than engineering) was as under : “Higher Secondary (Science) or Secondary with Science having two years experience.” 16. A perusal of the abovementioned qualification makes it clear that the qualification prescribed was just Secondary with science or higher secondary with science and so far as the petitioner is concerned she was a student of Home Science in Secondary. The qualification as prescribed does not distinguish in the subject of science or home science. So far as the present petitioner is concerned she was admittedly a Lab. Assistant with the Home Science College, Bikaner. Furthermore, in the year 1994 she was directed to be charged against the newly sanctioned post of Lab. Assistant with the College of Home Science, Bikaner. So far as the present petitioner is concerned she was admittedly a Lab. Assistant with the Home Science College, Bikaner. Furthermore, in the year 1994 she was directed to be charged against the newly sanctioned post of Lab. Assistant with the College of Home Science, Bikaner. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be presumed or concluded that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for being appointed as a Lab. Assistant. Even for the post of Lab. Assistant (non-graduate engineering branch) the same qualification was prescribed. Therefore, this Court is of the specific opinion that the petitioner did possess the required educational qualification at the relevant point of time, that is, at the time of appointment in the year 1989. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 and has continued to work with the Department till the year 2019, the year of her superannuation. So far as the period from 11.06.1991 (when her service was terminated) to 08.11.2001 (the date of award of the Tribunal) is concerned the same can also not be concluded to be a period spent in service with intervention of the Court as held in case of Magan Lal Damore vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6038/2013) decided on 09.08.2016. In Magan Lal Damore’s case a Co-ordinate bench of this Court observed as under : “In the opinion of this Court, the authority who has taken decision not to regularize the services of petitioner has usurped the power to define that adjudication made by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur which is upheld by this Court is intervention of the Court. In fact, it is not interference of the Court but it is an adjudication made by the Court whereby, order of termination was set aside in legal proceeding. Interference can be understood if any person is working under the interim orders of the Court but petitioner has not worked under the interim orders of this Court but while quashing his termination order dated 01.11.1995, the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur held that petitioner is entitled for continuity in service.” 18. Interference can be understood if any person is working under the interim orders of the Court but petitioner has not worked under the interim orders of this Court but while quashing his termination order dated 01.11.1995, the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur held that petitioner is entitled for continuity in service.” 18. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at would be that if an award has ultimately been passed in favour of the employee and a specific relief has been granted by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in service, that is the final adjudication and thus, the period spent in service by virtue of interim order cannot be termed to be a period with intervention of the Court. 19. Therefore in view of the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi & Magan Lal Damore’s case (supra), undisputedly the petitioner has completed her 10 years of service and deserves to be regularized. 20. In view of the above observations, the present petition is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 26.09.1989. All the consequential benefits would follow.