JUDGMENT : 1. This special appeal writ has been filed on behalf of the appellant–University being aggrieved with the judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2920/2016 (Suresh Chandra Mehta Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of in the light of order dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014), which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2022 passed in Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.588/2022). 2. Vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, it was further directed to the appellant–University to regularize the service of the respondent from the date of his initial appointment i.e. July 1985 on the post of Photographer with all consequential benefits within the period of three months. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially engaged on daily wages at the rate of Rs.20/-per working day on casual basis to work against the post of Photographer for a period of one month, with the stipulation that he would not be paid for more than 26 days in a month, vide order dated 15th/17th July, 1985. The said engagement of the respondent as casual worker against the post of Photograph was continued for every month till 14.07.1988 and thereafter he did not engage as casual worker against the said post of Photographer. In the meantime, the daily wages of the respondent were increased from Rs.20/-to Rs.30/-vide order dated 10th/12th December, 1985 and thereafter vide order dated 18th/22nd April, 1987, he was paid fixed emoluments at the rate of Rs.780/-per month, which was to be charged from the regular post of Photographer. 4. Later on, when the engagement of the respondent was discontinued/terminated, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/1988 (Suresh Chand Mehta Vs. Raj. Agricultural University & Ors.) before this Court at Jaipur Bench, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 29.11.1994 because in the year 1991, he was again re-engaged on 28.05.1991 on compassionate ground as casual Photographer against the post of Photographer on fixed salary of Rs.780/- per month. 5. Raj. Agricultural University & Ors.) before this Court at Jaipur Bench, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 29.11.1994 because in the year 1991, he was again re-engaged on 28.05.1991 on compassionate ground as casual Photographer against the post of Photographer on fixed salary of Rs.780/- per month. 5. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench while dismissing SBCWP No.2253/1988 (supra) did not interfere with the discontinuation/termination order of the respondent and observed that no cause of action survives in the writ petition. 6. It is also to be noticed that after re-engagement of the respondent by the appellant-University vide order dated 28.05.1991 on the fixed salary of Rs.780/-per month, he was allowed the payment of fixed salary of Rs.1400/-per month minimum of the pay scale of Photographer i.e. 1400-40-1800-50-2300-60-2360 vide order dated 21st/23rd October, 1991. 7. It is further noticed that later on vide order dated 21.11.2002, the appellant-University fixed the salary of the respondent at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month minimum of the pay scale of Photographer i.e. 5000-150-8000 with other allowances w.e.f. 01.09.1996 consequent upon implementation of Revised New Pay Scale, 1998. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent continued in the service of appellant-University till he reached the age of superannuation in the year 2016. 9. The respondent filed SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) with a prayer that the appellant-University be directed to regularize his services on the post of Photographer from the date of his initial appointment i.e. July 1985 with all consequential benefits and to make payment of salary in regular pay scale i.e. 640-1180 applicable to the post. 9. The respondent filed SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) with a prayer that the appellant-University be directed to regularize his services on the post of Photographer from the date of his initial appointment i.e. July 1985 with all consequential benefits and to make payment of salary in regular pay scale i.e. 640-1180 applicable to the post. The said claim of the respondent was opposed by the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge of this Court, however, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) and the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (supra), disposed of the said writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 in terms of the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) with a direction to appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondent from his initial appointment i.e. July 1985 on the post of Photographer with all consequential benefits within a period of three months. 10. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant-University has argued that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in allowing the prayer made by the respondent in that writ petition as the respondent was neither appointed on the post of Photographer nor faced selection at any point of time and in such circumstances, even as per the resolution of Board of Management of the appellant-University, his services are not liable to be regularized. 11. It is also contended that the case of the respondent is distinguishable from the case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8358/2009) decided on 05.07.2011, on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra). 12. It is also contended that the case of the respondent is distinguishable from the case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8358/2009) decided on 05.07.2011, on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra). 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has further argued that the respondent was initially engaged on daily wages at fixed salary as causal worker in the year 1985 and his services were discontinued/terminated on 14.07.1988 and being aggrieved with the said discontinuation/termination, the respondent preferred SBCWP No.2253/1988 (supra) before this Court at Jaipur Bench, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 29.11.1994 as infructuous and the respondent was re-engaged in the year 1991, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court has erred in issuing direction to regularize the services of the respondent from July 1985. It is also submitted that in any case when the dis-engagement/termination order of the respondent of the year 1988 was not set aside or interfered by this Court, the employment of the respondent can be deemed to be continued from 1991 only when he was re-engaged and not from the period prior to that. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) may kindly be set aside and the said writ petition filed by the respondent may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant-University and argued that the learned Single Judge of this Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 and issuing direction to the appellant-University for regularizing the services of the respondent from his initial appointment i.e. July 1985 with all consequential benefits. It is also submitted that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by the decisions dated 22.03.2022, 05.07.2011 and 06.01.2014 rendered by this Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra), Sudhansu Roy Bhatt (supra) and Dr. Vijay Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9889/2008) respectively. 15. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 16. It is not in dispute that the respondent remained in service of the appellant-University as Photographer for a long period. Vijay Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9889/2008) respectively. 15. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 16. It is not in dispute that the respondent remained in service of the appellant-University as Photographer for a long period. Even if it is assumed that the disengagement/termination of the respondent in the year 1988 was not interfered by this Court, the respondent remained in service of the appellant-University as Photographer since 1991 when he was re-engaged. 17. From perusal of the documents annexed by the respondent along with writ petition SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) and the rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-University, it is clear that since 1991, the respondent was assigned duties at various stations such as Sikar, Fatehpur, Bikaner, Banswara etc. and he was also sent by the appellant-University for participating in Training Programme, Video Programme and Production Techniques. The respondent was also granted various kinds of leaves by the appellant-University from the date of his re-engagement. It is also very important to note that the respondent was paid fixed wages/salary against the sanctioned post of Photographer. 18. It is true that the respondent did not face the Job Test/Interview, however, as per the resolution adopted by the Board of Management of the appellant-University, which was also relied by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), the respondent is entitled for regularization as per Clause 2 of the said Resolution. 19. Though the appellant-University has contended that it had advertised the post of Photographer in the year 2004 but the respondent did not apply for the said post and, therefore, even as per the above Clause 2 of the Resolution, the services of the respondent are not liable to be regularized. The said contention of the appellant-University is bereft of any force because it is not a case of the appellant-University that it had organized a Job Test/Interview for the post of Photographer and the respondent did not appear in the said Job Test/Interview. 20. The Division Bench of this Court in Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. Vs. 20. The Division Bench of this Court in Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. Vs. Sudhansu Roy Bhatt (D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos.909/2011 and 927/2011) decided on 26.07.2011 in relation to the temporary/casual employee of the appellant-University has held as under : “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 (supra) 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.” 21. However, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 has erred in directing the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondent from July 1985 because the respondent, though continued from 1985 to 1988 as casual worker against the post of Photographer, but his services were disengaged/terminated from the year 1988 and the challenge made by him to the said disengagement/termination failed before this Court, therefore, he cannot claim regularization from July 1985. It is an admitted position that the respondent was re-engaged in the year 1991 and continued to work on the same post from 28.05.1991 up to the age of superannuation, therefore, his services are liable to be regularized from the date of 28.05.1991. 22. In view of the above discussions, this special appeal writ is disposed of and the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) is modified and the appellant-University is directed to regularize the services of the respondent from 28.05.1991 on the post of Photographer with all the consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 23. Stay petition also stands disposed of.