ORDER : 1. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 2. The petitioner was appointed as Computer Assistant on casual basis on 01.09.1983. On 10.05.1988, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Computer Assistant for a period of six months in regular pay scale with a condition that his services would be terminated if regular selection of the candidates takes place. The said appointment was made at the Livestock Research Station, Vallabhnagar under the control of the Sukhadia University, Udaipur. Later on, a separate Agriculture University was constituted and was named as Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner which, after bifurcation in the year 2000, was divided into two branches - the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. The petitioner who was initially appointed by the Sukhadia University, Udaipur became an employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and ultimately an employee of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur in the year 2000. 3. The appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and during that period he was even granted pay fixations, increments and all other service benefits. Even the first selection grade was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.1997. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 22.01.1998 was taken by the University of Bikaner to the effect that the services of all the adhoc employees would be regularized. As in pursuance to the said resolution, the services of the petitioner were not regularized therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2013, wherein the specific directions were given to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12849/2011; Mangi lal Lohar v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors. decided on 10.09.2013, which was inter alia decided in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 5. The petitioner further submitted that even in a similar case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. 5. The petitioner further submitted that even in a similar case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009) decided on 05.07.2011, orders were passed by this Court for regularization of services of the petitioner therein which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and ultimately the Department regularized the services of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt w.e.f. the initial date of appointment. The present petitioner therefore, moved a representation before the respondent-Authorities with a prayer to decide his case in light of the judgment passed in Mangi Lal Lohar’s case (supra) and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra). But vide order dated 26.04.2014, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was working had been abolished in the year 1998 and therefore, his services on the said post cannot be regularized. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is specifically covered by Mangi Lal Lohar and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra) and he deserves the same relief as had been granted to both the employees therein. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that: (i) the post of Computer Assistant was not a sanctioned post and therefore, after abolition of the said post in the year 1998, the post itself did not exist in the respondent-University and hence his services could not have been regularized. (ii) the petitioner was appointed for a particular Project and the said Project had ended up in the year 1998 after which the post was abolished and no such post now exist in the respondent-University. (iii) the petitioner had been appointed by the predecessor University i.e. the Agriculture University, Bikaner and the said University has not been impleaded as the party respondent in the present writ petition and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that sole ground. (iv) Even in terms of directions as given by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the pre-requisite conditions as provided in para 52 of Uma Devi’s case (supra) have to be followed. In view of the same, as the petitioner was not a regular employee appointed against the sanctioned post, his services could not have been regularized. In view of the same, as the petitioner was not a regular employee appointed against the sanctioned post, his services could not have been regularized. (v) So far as the other alleged similarly situated employees namely Mangi Lal Lohar and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt are concerned, they were working on the sanctioned post which existed in the University on the date of their regularization and therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed to be a similarly situated employee. (vi) Even in terms of Condition No.4 of the appointment order, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have applied for regular selection process. The petitioner having not applied for the same could not be regularized. (vii) The resolution as relied upon by the petitioner providing for regularisation of services of the employees working on adhoc basis was a resolution taken by the predecessor University and the same cannot be made applicable to the present University. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sheela Rani reported in 2007 (3) ALT 23 (SC) and the judgment of this Court passed in Chandan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269/1998) decided on 09.08.2012. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. To start with, it is relevant to note that most of the grounds raised by the respondent-University were raised by it in the matter of Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt also and the same were dealt with and decided by the Court as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire pleadings of the case. In this matter, the respondents are not disputing the date of appointment of the petitioner which is 6/8.3.1978 on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. Even the respondents are not disputing the fact that resolution was passed by the Board of Management of the then University in which the petitioner was appointed which is Annex. 15 which runs as follows: 1. Such persons who have passed the prescribed jobtest/interview and are found qualified for the post and has been given appointment on ad hoc basis, their services be regularized from the date of Joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. 15 which runs as follows: 1. Such persons who have passed the prescribed jobtest/interview and are found qualified for the post and has been given appointment on ad hoc basis, their services be regularized from the date of Joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Such persons although, fulfill the prescribed qualifications but have been given appointment on ad hoc/casual/fixed basis without job/test/interview their services be regularised after taking the prescribed jobtest/interview as per rules through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 3. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were appointed on ad hoc or casual basis without interview/job-test on the post for which they do not fulfill the minimum qualifications be deferred for providing details of such cases. 4. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis, but subsequently regularized after taking their job-test/ interview and now requesting for regularizing their intervening period be deferred for providing details of such cases. The respondent University issued the notification dated 4/6.1.2000 to follow the above resolution and not disputing Annex. 15, resolution passed by the then University. Following notification was issued on 4/6.1.2000 by the present University: “The Vice-Chancellor is pleased to order that till a set of rules are framed by the newly established Agricultural University, Udaipur, prevalent rules of RAU, Bikaner be followed by Agril. University, Udaipur. In addition to the above, various policy decisions taken by the BOM, Academic Council and other committees of RAU since 1987 shall also be applicable for Agricultural University, Udaipur till further orders.” In this view of the matter, if such conscientious decision has been taken by the respondent University, then, obviously after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner as per decision taken by the respondent University and order dated 22.3.2011, the respondents cannot deny the entire financial benefits accruing to the petitioner as a result of regularisation of the services from the date of his initial entry in the service. It may also be observed here that although the respondent University took decision to adjudge the suitability of those employees who were appointed on ad hoc basis by way of taking job test/interview but, at the same time, it was also resolved that in the event of passing the job test and interview of the benefits will be extended from the date of initial entry in the service. In this case, something is required to be observed with regard to inaction on the part of the University. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 and he was allowed to work continuously, he was allowed grade increments also; and, thereafter, the then University took decision in the year 1998 for regularization of those employees who were working on ad hoc basis after taking their job-test. The respondent University is not disputing that such resolution was accepted by the present University, then, in pursuance of sale resolution why the petitioner's case was not considered in time and, now, when the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court passed order to comply with the resolution, then, the respondent University has proceeded to act upon the resolution passed by the then University and accepted by the present University. In my opinion, administrative and management functions ought always to be just and fair and should not be arbitrary. So also, once any benefit is extended to the employees by the employer, then, it should be delayed for years together. Apathy on the part of the employer University has not only resulted in heart burning but avoidable and unnecessary litigation arose. Further, when ultimately the Court passed order, the University again proceeded to take action upon its own interpretation; meaning thereby, persons working on the posts in the University are not implementing the resolution passed by the statutory body i.e., Board of Management thereby creating volume of litigation in the Court. Further, when ultimately the Court passed order, the University again proceeded to take action upon its own interpretation; meaning thereby, persons working on the posts in the University are not implementing the resolution passed by the statutory body i.e., Board of Management thereby creating volume of litigation in the Court. 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.” 11. Therefore, now there can be no quarrel on the proposition that the ratio as laid down in Mangi Lal Lohar’s case (supra) and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra) would apply to the present writ petition also. Only contention raised by the respondents which now requires consideration is that the post on which the petitioner was working had been abolished in the year 1998 and therefore, as the post does not exist as on date, he cannot be regularized on the said post. The document (Annex.-12) annexed with the petition which is the impugned order, is itself sufficient to negate the said contention of the respondents. While considering the case of the petitioner, the Registrar of the respondent-University referred to the details furnished to him by his subordinate officer which read as under : “8. As narrated by Director Extension Education and as per the personal records of Sh. Jagdish Prasad: n. Appointed as Computer Assistant at Livestock Research Station, Vallabhnagar on starting pay of Rs. 880/- p.m. plus usual allowances on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 880-15-1000-20-1200-25-1400-30-1640-40-1680, wherein he joined on the forenoon of 17.05.1988. o. His age at the time of his initial appointment was 26 years, 01 month and 10 days. Jagdish Prasad: n. Appointed as Computer Assistant at Livestock Research Station, Vallabhnagar on starting pay of Rs. 880/- p.m. plus usual allowances on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 880-15-1000-20-1200-25-1400-30-1640-40-1680, wherein he joined on the forenoon of 17.05.1988. o. His age at the time of his initial appointment was 26 years, 01 month and 10 days. p. He was M.Com at the time of his initial appointment. q. On 17.05.1997 he was given benefit of selection scale on rendering 9 years service in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-20-1560-40-2000-50-2050. His pay was fixed at Rs. 1200/-. r. His pay was further revised with effect from 17.05.1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 and fixed at Rs. 4000/-. s. Vide Order No. F.447/AU/Estt/Gr. II/98/9935 dated 14/15.07.1998, he was transferred and adjusted against the post of Data Entry cum Computer Operator at Director (P&M), RAU, Bikaner, wherein he joined on 29.07.1998. t. But as no post was available at DPM, hence he rendered his services at Registrar Office, RAU, Bikaner, from 29.07.1998 to 27.08.1998. u. As per verbal orders of Registrar, RAU, Bikaner, joined his services at Director, Research (VAS), Bikaner on 28.08.1998 and rendered his services uptill 10.11.1998. v. Thereafter, he again rendered his service in the office of the Registrar, RAU, Bikaner from 11.11.1998 to 05.01.1999. w. Vide Order No. F.447/RAU/Estt/Gr. II/98/1073 dated 05.12.1998, he was adjusted against the post of LDC. x. Vide order No. F.447/RAU/Estt/Gr. II/98/10747 dated 11.12.1998, he was ordered to work at the office of Director Students Welfare, RAU, Bikaner and his salary was drawn from the vacant post of LDC. y. As a result of exercising option in the newly established Agriculture University, Udaipur (Now MPUAT, Udaipur), he joined this University on 10.08.2000 and his salary was drawn against the post of UDC. z. From May, 2005 to till date, his salary is drawn against the post of Jr. Project Operator.” 12. Further, in the said document, it has been specifically admitted that the petitioner was serving against the duly sanctioned vacant post uptill the year 1998. It has also been the conclusion of the Screening Committee that the petitioner rendered his services at various offices and his salary was charged from the vacant post of LDC uptill the year 2005. From May 2005 till date, his salary was drawn against the post of Jr. Project Operator. 13. It has also been the conclusion of the Screening Committee that the petitioner rendered his services at various offices and his salary was charged from the vacant post of LDC uptill the year 2005. From May 2005 till date, his salary was drawn against the post of Jr. Project Operator. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that on the date the petitioner was appointed as Computer Assistant, the said post was a sanctioned and a vacant post and the petitioner’s appointment was a regular appointment with a regular pay scale. When the petitioner was directed to work at the office of Director Students Welfare, RAU, Bikaner on 11.12.1998, his salary was drawn from the vacant post of LDC. 14. Moresoever, the order of retirement dated 26.07.2017 of the petitioner also mentions the petitioner to be working as a Computer Assistant on the said date. The office order dated 01/07.01.2022 has been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner, whereby the petitioner had been accorded reengagement on contractual basis for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.05.2022. The said order reads as under:- “In pursuance to University order No. F.225/UAO/MPUAT/Estt./Gr.II/2021/5697-5705 dated 29th December, 2021. Shri Jagdish Prasad, retired Computer Assistant is hereby engaged on contractual basis on fixed pay of Rs. 10400/- per month at DEE, Udaipur against the vacant post of Non-Plan, Computer Assistant for the period from 1st January, 2022 to 30th June, 2022 as per guideline of Department of Personnel, GoR Circular No. E17 (10)DOP/A-II/94 dated 8th February, 2018 and implemented in MPUAT, Udaipur, vide this office order No. F. 127/MPUAT/Estt/Gr.II/2017/4082-87 dated 2nd June, 2018. His salary will be charged against the vacant post of Computer Assistant from Directorate of Extension Education, MPUAT, Udaipur.” 15. A bare perusal of the said order makes it clear that the petitioner had been re-engaged qua the vacant post of Computer Assistant which leaves no doubt that the University has a vacant post of Computer Assistant and the services of the petitioner are also needed by the University till date. Therefore, it is clear on record that the petitioner has been in continuous service of the respondent-University since his initial appointment dated 17.05.1988 and his services had never seen a break. 16. Therefore, it is clear on record that the petitioner has been in continuous service of the respondent-University since his initial appointment dated 17.05.1988 and his services had never seen a break. 16. In view of the above facts, it can safely be concluded that the rejection of the petitioner on the ground that the post of Computer Assistant on which he was working no more exists with the University cannot be sustained. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that no such post exists then also, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been and is continuing to work with the respondent-University since last 25 years on the said post. 17. In the case of Kaushal Devi Sharma, the petitioner therein was not even qualified for the service but she was granted relief by this Court on the ground that she had worked for more than 30 years with the respondent-University. In the said matter, to balance the equity, the Court had directed for regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post lower than what she was seeking regularization on keeping in view her respective qualification. 18. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned:- (i) Sheela Rani’s case (supra) was a matter pertaining to a casual worker and the specific question considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the services of a casual worker can be regularized with retrospective effect that is from the date of new appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheela Rani’s case (supra) held as under:- “10. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the order of retrospective regularization passed by the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” (ii) So far as Chandan Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the regularization was not granted from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner therein only on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not provided under the Service Rules and therefore, he could not be treated as regular from the initial date of appointment. 19. This is not the case in the present matter. The petitioner herein was appointed on a regular pay scale vide a regular process of selection on adhoc basis. 19. This is not the case in the present matter. The petitioner herein was appointed on a regular pay scale vide a regular process of selection on adhoc basis. It is not the case of the respondent University that the said appointment was irregular or illegal. Even in the cases of irregular appointment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) directed for regularization of services after completion of 10 years of services. 20. As an unshot of the above mentioned discussion and in view of the ratio as laid down in Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra) the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The Order dated 26.04.2014 (Annex.-12) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Assistant or any other equivalent post w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment in service i.e. 17.05.1988 with all consequential benefits. 21. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.