ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant Writ Petition is preferred by writ petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 whereby the services of petitioner as Lecturer (Jyotish-Ganit) is terminated by respondents in violation of principles of natural justice and in complete violation of applicable statutory rules and regulations. 2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition with following prayer:- (i) To quash and set aside the impugned termination order dated 24.052025 and the consequential relieving order dated 24.05.2025 issued by the respondents; (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to his post as Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit), with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, arrears of salary, and all other service related dues; 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon grounds of writ petition submitted that in pursuant to advertisement issued by RPSC for recruitment on post of Lecturer (Jyotish-Ganit), the petitioner was selected and ultimately appointed by order dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure-2) by the Directorate, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He further submitted that as per advertisement, the educational qualification for selection as Lecturer is ‘Gr. II Aacharya degree’ in relevant subject. He further submitted that petitioner has fulfilled the criteria as per advertisement and there is no doubt that the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification as per advertisement. He further referred the stand taken by RPSC and the State Government in support of petitioner and submitted that neither State nor RPSC have raised any doubt about qualification of present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that one Hansraj Sharma has challenged the appointment of present petitioner by filing a writ petition on the ground that present petitioner does not possess NET qualification and after considering the material on record original writ petition No. 5700/2005 was dismissed on 18.05.2011. He further submitted that said order was assailed by Hansraj Sharma before the Division Bench and on 24.08.2011, the order of learned Single Judge was set aside and matter was remitted back for fresh decision. He further submitted that thereafter the writ petition was allowed and in pursuant to said order dated 13.07.2012 Hansraj Sharma was appointed as a Lecturer (Jyotish- Ganit) in year 2015 but services of petitioner were continued. 5. He further submitted that thereafter the writ petition was allowed and in pursuant to said order dated 13.07.2012 Hansraj Sharma was appointed as a Lecturer (Jyotish- Ganit) in year 2015 but services of petitioner were continued. 5. Learned counsel has further referred and placed reliance upon a circular dated 11.11.2016 issued by University of Rajasthan (Annexure-11) and submitted that present petitioner has acquired and fulfilled the conditions specified in the UGC Regulations, 2000 as amended on 11.07.2016, prescribing minimum qualification for appointment of teachers (Assistant Professor). The UGC Regulation, 2000 provides for NET/SLET/SET qualification for recruitment and appointment as an Assistant Professor or equivalent position in university/Colleges and institutions. He further submitted that the petitioner was nominated in several orientation and refresher courses and in pursuant to nomination, participated in the orientation and refresher courses. He also submitted that the petitioner is possessing qualification as per advertisement and his selection and appointment iss in accordance with qualification as laid down in the advertisement issued by RPSC. He further submitted that the petitioner has served and rendered uninterrupted services since his appointment on 22.10.2005, till termination of his service on 24.05.2025, thus petitioner has rendered uninterrupted services of 20 years. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with rules prevalent at the time of recruitment and no court has ruled that the appointment was de hors the rules. He further submitted that the judgments by learned Single Judge was passed by applying the UGC regulation, 2000 in State of Rajasthan, which were in fact not adopted till 2022 and were not applicable upon the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further referred judgment in case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Anr. Vs. S.B. Halegkar and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 591 and submitted that when a person is discharging his duties and functioning continuously for a long period and was selected by the due process then the selected candidate cannot be blamed for selection and has a right to continue on the post. He further referred the judgment in case of University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 389 and submitted that the UGC Regulation, 2000 specially amendment of 2016 is applicable retrospectively and protect the appointment of PhD holders prior to 2009 from NET requirements. He also submitted that the judgment in case of University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 389 and submitted that the UGC Regulation, 2000 specially amendment of 2016 is applicable retrospectively and protect the appointment of PhD holders prior to 2009 from NET requirements. He also submitted that the judgment in case of University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. (supra) is sufficient to drawn a conclusion in favor of petitioner when he acquired eligibility in accordance with UGC Regulation, if at all applicable upon the present petitioner. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that before issuing an order of 24.05.2025, present petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing, and which clearly violates the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that present petitioner has already served more than 20 years uninterruptedly, and he is entitled to be continued till his superannuation. He further submitted that present petitioner has lost all avenues as his services were terminated when he attained the age of 49 years. He further referred notification dated 23.10.2012 issued by the Government of Rajasthan at the time of revision of pay of Teachers of Government Sanskrit Colleges which were applicable since 01.07.2006 and submitted that as per Rule 20(iii) the existing faculty of Sanskrit Colleges who did not possess minimum qualifications as prescribed by the University concerned, at the time of initial recruitment, was permitted to attain said qualifications, within 5 years from the date of placement in the revised pay scales. He further submitted that as per said circular, the petitioner if not qualified on initial date of appointment even then he has 5 years after promulgation of rules to acquire the minimum qualification. He further submitted that the appointment of present petitioner was made under the Rules of 1978 and same is protected under the Rules of 2022. He also submitted that the impugned order is not only arbitrary but it is against the established cannons of law and it is a classic example of hostile discrimination and colourable exercise of power by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has further referred and relied upon judgments in cases of Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. Vs. S.D. Halegkar & Ors. 1993 (3) SCC 591 , Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. 1977 (3) SCC 576, University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. 2022 (9) SCC 389 , Jagdish Prasad & Ors. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. Vs. S.D. Halegkar & Ors. 1993 (3) SCC 591 , Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Narayan Rath & Anr. 1977 (3) SCC 576, University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. 2022 (9) SCC 389 , Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2013 (8) SCC 633 , Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2024/AHC/35758 , Narendra Tripathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 Ors. Manu/MP/1343/2025, Sushil Kumar Tripathi Vs. Jagadguru Ram Bharachara Handicapped University & Anr. (2022) 8 SCC 760 , Sanjay Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan 7 Ors. 2024(3) SLR 976 , Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 428 , Satwati Deshwal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 126 , Kamal Narayan Mishra Vs. State of madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 169 , Mazharul Islam Hashmi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 7 Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 537 in support of his contentions, and submitted that present petitioner was appointed in accordance with rules prevalent in Rajasthan, but his appointment was challenged on the basis of regulations, which were applicable in the State of Rajasthan. He further submitted that the appointment of present petitioner was never challenged on any other ground and the services of petitioner were continued uninterruptedly, thus without giving him an opportunity or a departmental inquiry, termination is illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. 10. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and she submitted that in her detailed reply, the respondents have made it clear that in pursuant to order of this Hon’ble Court, the services of petitioner were terminated. She further submitted that the petitioner is well-aware about the challenge of his selection and appointment and subsequent orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, and affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench. She further submitted that since the appointment of petitioner was challenged before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore it is not necessary for the respondents to issue any notice and provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. She further submitted that since the appointment of petitioner was challenged before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore it is not necessary for the respondents to issue any notice and provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. She denied the allegations of non-observance of principle of natural justice and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned herein, it is not obligatory upon the respondents to adopt any process under the rules to terminate the services of petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsels for the parties on the merits of the case and perused the material placed on record along with judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. 12. The questions before this Court is:- (I) Whether the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 is violative of principle of natural justice? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the impugned order on grounds of regular and continuous appointment and subsequent acquisition of qualification as mandated under the UGC Regulation? 13. The timeline (list of dates) is reproduced for ready reference:- 14. In pursuant to advertisement dated 08.06.2004, inviting application for the post of Lecturer, Shastri classes for subject Jyotish (Ganit), the petitioner has filed an application. The qualification as prescribed under the advertisement is Acharya degree, IInd grade. After qualifying in the written examination and interview process, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by the Directorate of Sanskrit Education on 22.10.2005. The appointment was challenged by another candidate Hansraj Sharma by preferring a SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/2005 on the ground that the notification issued by RPSC is not in consonance with the guidelines of UGC for appointments on post of Lecturer in year 2000. 15. Initially, this writ petition was dismissed on the ground that present petitioner fulfills the criteria as provided under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Services Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1978). Moreover, Hansraj Sharma has filed a DB Special Appeal Writ and the Division Bench of this court on 24.08.2011 has considered a judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) and has remitted back the matter for fresh reconsideration. Moreover, Hansraj Sharma has filed a DB Special Appeal Writ and the Division Bench of this court on 24.08.2011 has considered a judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) and has remitted back the matter for fresh reconsideration. On reconsideration, another coordinate Bench after considering the UGC (minimum qualifications required for appointment and career advancements of teachers in University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (for short, ‘Regulations of 2000’) and judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya (supra) has allowed the writ petition and passed the following order:- “In the light of the facts and discussion made above, am of the opinion that the post of Lecturer in college, is to be governed by the Regulations of 2000, thus appointment of a candidate cannot be made if he is lacking in required qualification as given under Regulations of 2000. The respondent No.4 is lacking in required qualification of NET as per the UGC Regulations of 2000, thus he cannot be said to be an eligible candidate for the post of Lecturer. His appointment is de hors the Regulationsof 2000, moreso when, Rules of 1978 cannot govern appointment in college if repugnant to the Central Legislation being UGC Act and Regulations of 2000. If the post of Lecturer in college is governed by the Rules of 1978 then sanctity of UGC Act and its Regulations would be lost as the State Government may further evolve such mechanism by enacting service rules even for appointment of Lecturer in colleges contrary .to UGC Regulations, which, in fact, is not permissible. In the aforesaid background, respondent No.4 cannot be said to be a candidate in possession of required qualification for the post of Lecturer in college, thus his appointment cannot be allowed to stand and is accordingly sep aside. However, if the respondents intend to keep appointment to the post of Lecturer in schools then they would be at. liberty to do so by issuing fresh appointment order of respondent No.1 hut in that case, respondent No.4. should not be allowed to continue lo work as Lecturer in college/University. As a consequence of setting aside theappointment order of respondent No.4, the respondents are directed to fill-up the post from and amongst next eligible and meritorious candidate. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.” 16. should not be allowed to continue lo work as Lecturer in college/University. As a consequence of setting aside theappointment order of respondent No.4, the respondents are directed to fill-up the post from and amongst next eligible and meritorious candidate. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.” 16. Present petitioner Alok Sharma has filed a review petition and same was disposed on 03.07.2013 with following directions:- “1. The writ petitioner - Hans Raj Sharma was in possession of requisite qualification and he had qualified the written examination followed by interview call, however, other two candidates were not qualified for want of requisite educational qualification, thus RPSC is required to call two more candidates for interview pursuant to the selection of 2004. After interview, result may be declared and if writ petitioner finds place in the merit at No.1 then he may be recommended for appointment. However, directions aforesaid are subject to availability of record with the Commission as recruitment is of the year 2004. Till process aforesaid is completed, review petitioner may not be discontinued. 2. In case record of selection is not available with the, RPSC, then writ petitioner alone cannot be adjudged suitable for interview against one posts because selection through, interview cannot be made from one candidate against one post. In that eventuality, RPSC should notify the post again for holding the selection afresh, wherein, writ petitioner may also appear. For the aforesaid purpose and if need be, writ petitioner shall be given relaxation in age. Till then also, review petitioner may be continued as keeping one post vacant would not be of any purpose. However, on finalisation of selection, appointment would be given to successful candidate and, in that eventuality, review petitioner would make room for the said candidate, It is, however, "subject to amendment in the rules and any beneficial provision for the review petitioner to save his appointment. 3. In case of fresh recruitment, even review petitioner would be at liberty to apply if he is now in possession of requisite qualification with the benefit of age relaxation. It is made clear that if other than the three candidates earlier declared successful in the written examination, no candidate is available to enlarge the size of interview, as directed above, then for further directions, RPSC may make application for suitable directions. With the aforesaid directions/ observations, review petition is disposed of. 17. It is made clear that if other than the three candidates earlier declared successful in the written examination, no candidate is available to enlarge the size of interview, as directed above, then for further directions, RPSC may make application for suitable directions. With the aforesaid directions/ observations, review petition is disposed of. 17. Dissatisfied and aggrieved, present petitioner has filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 712/2013 and same was dismissed on 12.09.2014. Even the RPSC has also filed an appeal but same was already dismissed. Another candidate Hansraj Sharma has also filed an appeal and same was allowed and directions given by learned Single Judge in impugned order dated 03.07.2013 are set aside and present petitioner has approached Supreme Court on 21.11.2014 and SLP was dismissed. The material on record also indicate that in pursuant to judgment passed in favor of Hansraj Sharma on 13.07.2012, the Education Department Group-VI has appointed Hansraj Sharma on the post of Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit) on 19.03.2015 but services of present petitioner were neither dispensed with nor terminated as a consequential measure of appointment of Hans Raj Sharma on 19.03.2015. 18. The facts also indicate that petitioner has also acquired Ph.D. degree on 22.12.2005 and a provisional Ph.D. degree was obtained on 22.12.2006. In case of University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the UGC regulations, 2000 specially 2016 Amendment are applied retrospectively and sufficient to protect the appointment of Ph.D. holders as Lecturers prior to 2009. The Regulation of 2000 provides that a candidate has to qualify for NET Examination before being considered for appointment for the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor). When the recruitment process were initiated by RPSC, under the Rules of 1978 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1978) were in force and present petitioner is qualified as per requirement under the rules. The Division Bench extending the judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya (supra) on the basis of UGC Regulations of 2000 has remitted back the case and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that a candidate has to be qualified in accordance with UGC Regulation of 2000 and present petitioner was admittedly not a NET qualified candidate, on date of issuance of advertisement by RPSC. 19. 19. The UGC Regulations 2000 provides for eligibility criteria for appointment and career advancement of teachers in university and affiliated institutions, but the regulations were amended from time to time and the eligibility criteria, especially requirement of NET, was diluted by amendment in 2002 and later in 2006 and also in 2009. The 2006 Amendment redefined NET exemptions, allowing the candidate with a Ph.D. in the concerned subject to be exempted from NET for postgraduate and undergraduate teaching levels and those with an M.Phil only for undergraduate teaching. After 2009 Amendment, the candidates awarded with a Ph.D. Degree are fully exempted from NET/SLET for recruitment on post of Assistant Professor or equivalent position. Herein this case, the petitioner was holding a degree in IInd grade and there is no doubt about the qualification as per notification of RPSC. The RPSC has protected selection of present petitioner on the basis of Rules of 1978 and the selection procedure initiated by RPSC. For ready reference we are reproducing a particular para from the Division Bench Judgment dated 12.09.2014 to show that the petitioner was having qualification in accordance with rules of Rajasthan and also the condition as prescribed under the advertisement issued by the RPSC. This particular para is reproduced as under:- “16. We have considered the arguments raised by Mr.Alok Sharma and find that though he held the qualification in accordance with the Rules of 1978 and the advertisement issued by the RPSC, since he was not holding the qualification as prescribed by the UGC Regulations of 2000, he could not have been selected for appointment on the post of Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit). The legal position, in this regard, is no longer in doubt. If the State Government is slow in amending the Rules so as to bring in them tune with the UGC Regulations of 2000, under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, he cannot derive any advantage out of the delay caused by the State Government.” 20. It is also a fact that Hansraj Sharma has neither challenged the virus of Rule nor the condition of advertisement issued by the RPSC but extending the Regulation of 2000, the petition filed by Hansraj Sharma was allowed in light of judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya (supra). It is also a fact that Hansraj Sharma has neither challenged the virus of Rule nor the condition of advertisement issued by the RPSC but extending the Regulation of 2000, the petition filed by Hansraj Sharma was allowed in light of judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya (supra). The UGC Regulation, 2000 mandates requirement of NET for appointment of post of Assistant Professor or equivalent, but after amendment in 2002, certain exemptions were granted to candidate who completed M.Phil or submitted their PhD thesis. Thereafter, by 2006 amendment, candidate with PhD were exempted from NET. Later, complete exemption was granted by amendment in 2009. It is apparent that in 2010, again regulations were amended and also in 2016 and 2018. The history to amendment in Regulation 2000 is mentioned below. 2002 Amendment : Allowed exemption from the NET requirement for candidates who had completed M.Phil. or submitted their Ph.D. thesis by a specified date. However, failure to obtain the Ph.D. later would require clearing the NET. 2006 Amendment : Further clarified NET exemptions, allowing candidates with a Ph.D. in the relevant subject to be exempted from NET for postgraduate and undergraduate teaching, while M.Phil. holders were exempted only for undergraduate teaching. 2009 Amendment : Made NET or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) compulsory for lecturer recruitment except for candidates awarded a Ph.D. compliant with UGC standards; such Ph.D. holders were exempted. 2010 Amendment : Upheld the 2009 amendment’s exemption for Ph.D. holders and detailed career advancement rules under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). 2016 & 2018 Amendments : Clarified that both pre- 2009 and post-2009 Ph.D. degree holders are exempt from qualifying NET, correcting earlier ambiguities that led to varied interpretations. These amendments reflect UGC’s evolving approach to teacher qualifications, especially balancing NET requirements with recognition of Ph.D. degrees meeting UGC standards. The amendments came with clarifications on exemptions, eligibility, and promotion frameworks under CAS. 21. The facts in case of University of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Merlin J.N. & Anr. (supra) indicate that Dr. Jaya Kumar completed his graduation in 1998 and acquired M.Phil in 2000 and PhD on 23.08.2006. The argument in favor of Dr. Jaya Kumar was that when he was appointed he was fully qualified and only after amendment in rules, the UGC Regulations were adopted by the University. After considering judgment in case of P. Suseela Vs. Jaya Kumar completed his graduation in 1998 and acquired M.Phil in 2000 and PhD on 23.08.2006. The argument in favor of Dr. Jaya Kumar was that when he was appointed he was fully qualified and only after amendment in rules, the UGC Regulations were adopted by the University. After considering judgment in case of P. Suseela Vs. UGC (2015) 8 SCC 129 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manoj Sharma (2018) 3 SCC 329 , a 3 Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under. “25. Another argument raised by the respondent was that this Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manoj Sharma (supra) squarely held against the appellants. We disagree. In Manoj Sharma (supra), the respondents had obtained M.Phil. degrees under distance education programmes, which was de- recognised by the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that such de- recognition was prospective in nature, and their M.Phil. degrees were not rendered ineffective, which was upheld by this Court. As far as the issue of application of the 2009 UGCR was concerned, the same was restricted to only M.Phil. degree holders, wherein the 2009 UGCR removed the NET exemption granted for M.Phil. degree holders, and retained it only for Ph.D. holders in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations. Again, this Court was not afforded the opportunity to analyse the 2016 or 2018 UGCR, as those were not raised before it (the respondents were unrepresented before this Court). Thus, we find limited applicability of Manoj Sharma (supra) to the present case. 26 . The logic pervading all the versions of the UGCR from 1993-2018 (as discussed above) to exempt M.Phil. / Ph.D. holders from qualifying in the NET was perhaps premised on the understanding that such a doctorate in one’s chosen subject, involving years of study, would render a greater understanding of the subject compared to most other candidates taking the NET who have only obtained a Master’s degree. Such qualification (M.Phil. or Ph.D.) is undoubtedly awarded for a proven proficiency of the candidate in the concerned subject or discipline. This is apparent from the minimum qualification requirements of different positions as well – for e.g., while a Master’s degree is sufficient for application to the post of Assistant Professor, a Ph.D. is required for applying to the post of Associate Professor onwards. This is apparent from the minimum qualification requirements of different positions as well – for e.g., while a Master’s degree is sufficient for application to the post of Assistant Professor, a Ph.D. is required for applying to the post of Associate Professor onwards. To interpret the 2018 UGCR prospectively would imply that a pre-2009 Ph.D. holder’s appointment would be rendered illegal, and after having taught for several years, he/she would lose his/her seniority and all accrued benefits and would now have to take the NET in order to teach – which is clearly unwarranted. This Court therefore holds that Dr. Jayakumar’s appointment is protected by the 2016 UGCR, which is applicable retrospectively.” 22. Aforesaid clearly indicate that on the basis of Amendment in UGC Regulation, the appointment of Dr. Jaya Kumar was protected and held that the UGC Amended Regulation, which is applicable retrospectively. The petitioner herein is on same footings and he is eligible for protection of Amended UGC Regulations as mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner having qualification as prescribed under the UGC Regulation. 23. After appointment of Hansraj Sharma in the year 2015, the services of present petitioner was terminated on 24.05.2025 meaning thereby the petitioner was allowed to work even after appointment of Hansraj Sharma on 19.03.2015 in pursuant to judgment dated 13.07.2012 in Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/2005. The present petitioner was appointed in 2005 and his appointment was found illegal in year 2012 and the litigation has attained finality on 21.11.2014. After appointment of Hansraj Sharma on 19.03.2015, the services of petitioner were not terminated to accommodate Hansraj and was continued for another 10 years and currently his age is 49 years. Considering the superannuation age of 60 years he has left with 11 years meaning thereby petitioner has already rendered 20 years of services and now he has been shown the way of exit without any compensation. 24. The role of a perfect employer is missing as no notice has been served before passing impugned order 24.05.2025 rather on basis of a legal advice the dismissal order was passed on basis of judgment dated 13.07.2012. It is a unique case where the RPSC and State Government have protected the candidature of present petitioner. The requisite qualification for appointment under the State Rules can be conducted by the State. The UGC regulations are only directions and not binding upon the State. It is a unique case where the RPSC and State Government have protected the candidature of present petitioner. The requisite qualification for appointment under the State Rules can be conducted by the State. The UGC regulations are only directions and not binding upon the State. The regulations were further amended to dilute the eligibility as prescribed in 2000. Thus, without considering subsequent changes, the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 is passed by the respondents. In case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2093 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered subsequent events in deciding the litigation, as related cause of action has ceased to exists. 25. The material on record also indicates that Rules of 1978 were amended on 23.12.2012 and as per Rules 20(iii), five-year time is granted to existing faculty of Sanskrit colleges to acquire minimum qualification as prescribed by the University concerned. The Rules further empowers to relax the rules. Moreover, on information sheet dated 19.04.2011, the respondents had clearly indicate that the post of Lecturer, Acharya/Sanskrit Colleges is non-Gazetted post and UGC scale is not applicable, thus it is a case of wrong application of law, while deciding the writ petition on dated 13.07.2012. At the time of grant of scale analogus to UGC, the State has even afforded opportunity to the faculty, to acquire requisite minimum qualification in five years, those not having qualification. 26. One more ground which requires consideration is that there was no NET in Jyotish (Ganit) in year 2004 and in 2005. First time a subject named ‘Sanskrit Traditional Subject’ including Jyotish Shastra and Siddhant Jyotish with subject Code ‘073’ was introduced in 2018, for NET by UGC. The research indicate that first time NET was conducted on Sanskrit Traditional Subject in the December 2018. The Rajasthan Government has promulgated Rajasthan Sanskrit Education (Collegiate Branch) Services Rules, 2022 on 29.09.2022 and as per Rule 15, a candidate for direct recruitment has to possess qualification as prescribed under Column-IV of Schedule and it indicates that as per UGC Regulation 2009, the Ph.D. holders were exempted from requirement of NET/SLET/SET. If there is no NET in a particular subject, then the eligibility is required to be determined in accordance with provisions of Rules and present petitioner was possessing minimum qualification on date of appointment dated 22.10.2005. 27. If there is no NET in a particular subject, then the eligibility is required to be determined in accordance with provisions of Rules and present petitioner was possessing minimum qualification on date of appointment dated 22.10.2005. 27. After considering the judgment in case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya v. State (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench has declared that petitioner is not possessing the qualification as per UGC Regulation but by the time, the issue was considered. The petitioner has acquired Ph.D. degree and same is sufficient to claim qualification as per UGC Regulation which was amended in year 2009. The amendment was further made in 2016 and the judgment in case of University of Kerala (supra) clearly laid down that such an appointment is protected as the PhD holders were protected by subsequent amendment and amendment is retrospective in nature. 28. Herein this case, the petitioner is selected and appointed by way of a regular recruitment process after affording an opportunity to all eligible candidates, thus the petitioner has secured appointment in accordance with rules prevalent at the time of appointment. The appointment of petitioner was challenged on the ground that the petitioner does not possess qualification as per UGC Regulation, 2000. Neither the advertisement nor the provisions under the rule provides for applicability of UGC Regulation 2000 but appointment of present petitioner is found not in accordance with minimum qualification prescribed by UGCfor appointment of Lecturer in Sanskrit education. The State is making appointment for the post under the State Rules. 29. The reply of the State also indicate that the UGC regulation is not applicable and post is non-Gazetted. But by a Court order, the appointment of petitioner was not found in accordance with minimum qualification required for selection on the post of Lecturer, (Jyotish-Ganit). The petitioner has later acquired PhD degree and on basis of PhD degree, the appointment is protected under the UGC Regulation (as amended) and judgment, in case of University of Kerala (supra). The amendment is in UGC Regulation retrospective in nature to protect the appointment of present petitioner, thus the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 is contrary to the amendment in UGC Regulation 2000 and further protection of appointment made without following the UGC regulations. 30. The amendment is in UGC Regulation retrospective in nature to protect the appointment of present petitioner, thus the impugned order dated 24.05.2025 is contrary to the amendment in UGC Regulation 2000 and further protection of appointment made without following the UGC regulations. 30. In view of discussions made hereinabove, it is apparent on record that petitioner has served more than 20 years in services, including 10 years after appointment of Hansraj Sharma in pursuant to order dated 13.07.2012. The petitioner was neither served any notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing before dismissing from services. The petitioner has subsequently acquired minimum qualification as required under the UGC regulations and his appointment is liable to be protected as the Amendment of UGC Regulations are retrospective in nature. 31. In view of dicsussions made hereinabove, the termination order dated 24.05.2025 is bad and discriminating, due to following reasons:- (i) The petitioner is selected and appointed by fair, transparent and regular process, governed by the Rules of 1978 and procedure adopted by RPSC. (ii) The petitioner has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service of 20 years, particularly 13 years after judgment in S.B.Civil Writ No. 5700/2005 on 13.07.2012. (iii) The selection of petitioner was challenged on the ground that petitioner is not processing qualification as per UGC Regulation of 2000 but without taking note of the fact that these guidelines were amended, with retrospective effect, and retrospective amendment is beneficial to the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner has acquired minimum qualification as per UGC Regulation (amended from time to time) and liable for protection in wake of retrospective amendment. It is to be borne in mind that UGC NET was introduced for Sanskrit traditional subject in 2018. (v) A Court is empowered to decide a lis, on basis of subsequent event, particularly when it finds that the cause of action has not survived in wake of amendment in Regulation and acquisition of qualification. (vi) The UGC Regulations were made applicable in Rajasthan on 23.10.2012 but with effect from 01.01.2006. Further, providing opportunity to non-qualified candidates to acquire requisite minimum qualification is next five years, with protection clause for non-qualified candidates. (vii) No opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner after serving him a show cause notice, thus principle of natural justice are not complied by the respondents. 32. Further, providing opportunity to non-qualified candidates to acquire requisite minimum qualification is next five years, with protection clause for non-qualified candidates. (vii) No opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner after serving him a show cause notice, thus principle of natural justice are not complied by the respondents. 32. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned termination order dated 24.05.2025 and consequential relieving order dated 24.05.2025 issued by the respondents, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated to the post of Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit) with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and all other actual entitlements of monetary and other service related benefits. 33. With aforesaid, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8519/2025 stands disposed of with pending application(s), if any. 34. There shall be no order as to costs.