SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(SC) 84

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3285, 3284 and 3286 with 3287-89 of 1982 and C.M.P. No. 4056 of 1985 D/- 12-3-1985.

Advocates:
ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, B.D.SHARMA, G.L.SANGHI, LALITA KOHLI, MANOJ SVARUP, R.K.GARG, S.K.JAIN, SOBHAG MAL JAIN, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:

University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 - Section 20A - Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers Act, 1974 - Section 4, 3(1), 6, 7 – Rajasthan Universities Teachers Act, 1979 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 - University - Temporary Lecturers - Appellants in these appeals and, other connected appeals were temporary lecturers and. teachers on various subjects - They were appointed temporary lecturers by Vice-Chancellor by virtue - Whether, fixing of date which happens to be date on which emergency was clamped, for considering lecturers of University as eligible for screening under section 3 of Rajasthan Universities Teachers Act, 1979 makes Act invalid on ground of differentiation between pre-emergency and post-emergency appointments, in other words whether date 25th June, 1975 when emergency was clamped on country had any nexus with purpose of this Act - Whether the choice as date prior to which temporary teachers must have been in employment to be eligible for screening is bad – Held, There are some cases where choice of date has not been questioned - For instance Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works Ltd. wherein by notification benefit to a concessional rate of duty was made available if a manufacturer of matches made a declaration that total clearance of matches from a factory would not exceed 75 million during a financial year - There date chosen - It was contended before this Court by Union of India that concessional rate of duty was intended for small bona fide units who were in field when notification was issued - Concessional rate of duty was not intended to benefit large units which had split up into smaller units to earn, concession – Court is told that except two, all other appellants have already been absorbed - It has also to be borne in mind that in considering whether lecturers are eligible or not those who are functioning, functional gaps as Court have indicated hereinbefore should be ignored and if possible some arrangements be made where after appropriate screening or selection as the case may be, those who have been functioning as temporary teachers for long period might be absorbed including appellants, subject to rules of University - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

What is the true meaning of section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979?

What is the validity of fixing a pre-determined date (25 June 1975) to determine eligibility for screening for absorption, and does it create an irrational or unjustifiable differentiation under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

What governs whether a date chosen for classification in absorption statutes must have a nexus with the object of the legislation, and is such a date permissible to achieve long-tenured absorption of temporary lecturers?


Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.: - These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The appeals are by the original petitioners before the learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and who having succeeded before the learned single Judge became respondents in the appeals filed by the University before the Division Bench. The appellants in these appeals and, other connected appeals were temporary lecturers and. teachers on various subjects. They were appointed temporary lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of section 20A of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946.

2. Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as 1974 University Act provides for regular selection by Selection Committees. Section 3 of the 1974 Act provides that no stop-gap or part-time arrangement can be made for more. than six months. The temporary appointments of lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor cannot be made for more than one academic year. Further sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law as from the commencement of the said Act, no teacher or officer in any University in Rajasthan should be appointed except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under section 4. Section 4 of the Act provided for the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection of lecturers and officers in the University, and dealt with certain other aspects and section 5 provides for the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee. The other provisions of the said Act are not necessary to be referred to. It appears that for a long, time, indeed since the inception of the University, there have not been regular selections and appointments of lecturers in the University and as such the teachers organisations were pressing for absorption on substantive posts of temporary lecturers who were working for long years. It is not necessary to deal in detail on this position. One Shri Y. K. Tiwari filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The case was disposed of by a learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 30th August, 19,78 being Civil Writ Petition No. 446 of 1978 Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. University of Rajasthan. The petitioner in that case was appointed as a lecturer in Law on temporary basis after being selected by the Selection Committee by an earlier order dated 10th of January, 1975. The said petitioner had worked up to 19th June, 1975 but he was allowed his salary up to 29th May, 1975 as his term was not extended thereafter. He was not allowed any salary for vacation also as he had not completed six months service on the last day of the session. The petitioner was reappointed as a lecturer on a temporary basis by an order dated 13th September, 1975. As mentioned hereinbefore, there was long standing grievance of the temporary lecturers and therefore the Government of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978 which is hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1978. It was the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for screening. It was further contended that the previous Vice- Chancellor before handing over charge of his office had passed an order dated 2nd July, 1977 condoning the break in service of about 25 temporary lecturers in University belonging to the various departments including the faculty of law. Para or clause (3) of the said Ordinance of 1978 had an English version as well as Hindi version. In view of the fact that certain controversy is there, it is necessary to set out both these versions. Hindi version written in Roman script reads as follows : "Samast asthai pradhyapko ke sambandh me jo is roop me 25 June, 1975 ko ya usse purva niyukat kiye gaye the aur jo Rajasthan Vishvavidhyal Adhyapak (Asthai Pradhyapko Ka Amelan






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top