JUDGMENT

A.P.MISRA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant has sought for a direction for his continuance in the post of Director, Students Advisory Bureau and the post of Programme Officer. The case of the appellant is that he has been appointed under Section 3(3) of the University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 initially for a period of three months. The said appointment was extended on 10/2/1997 for a further period of six months. Thereafter on 5/3/1997 he was also appointed on ad hoc basis under Section 3(3) of the said Act as Programme Officer in the Department of Adult Education for a period of 90 days only. However, on 6/6/1997 the respondent terminated the services of the appellant on the said posts on the ground that his continuance on the same post was contrary to the law and further his period of appointment has already expired. In other words, the submission on behalf of the University is that this appointment was on ad hoc basis which could only be for a short period. The vacancy on the aforesaid post, as per submission for the appellant is since 1995 and till regular appointment is made he should be permitted to work. Submission is, his appointment cannot be said to be illegal as it was made under Section 3(3) of the said Act. It seems, during pendency of this matter before the High Court, the University authorities initiated proceedings to fill up this post by advertising for its selection. The High Court in appeal in this regard made the following observations:

"SINCE we have been informed that the recruitment process for appointment of regularly selected candidate as against sanctioned post is currently going on, the impugned order dated 7/5/1998 passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be eligible to participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates, who have applied for such posts, which they were holding as on the date of their termination and if they are declared successful in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, they may be appointed by the University of Rajasthan."

(3) WE may point out here, the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging his termination was dismissed, holding that the appointment was made without there being a sanctioned post.

(4) THE appellant aggrieved by this order passed by the High Court, preferred the present appeals.

(5) EARLIER when the matter was taken up, this Court desired to know the shortest period within which the University could fill up these posts through regular selection, This was because this process of selection seems to have taken too long, still without any definite date being fixed for the selection. This is recorded in our order dated 31/3/2000. We adjourned this case for the learned Counsel for the University to find this. Learned Counsel for the University, Mr. Manoj Swarup on 7/4/2000 stated that for selection on these posts, advertisement has already taken place and the process of selection would be concluded by the end of June 2000. In view of this, we deferred the hearing of this matter and directed it to be listed in July, 2000. On 21/7/2000 Counsel for the University sought further time to find out the latest position in this regard. When the matter was taken up on 25/8/2000, learned Counsel for the University placed a different picture by stating that the selection could only take place after prior sanction from the State Government. On the same day notice was issued by this Court to the State Government to expedite the matter. Thereafter on 5/9/2000 even though notice was issued earlier, as aforesaid, one weeks time was granted to the appellant to make formal application for its impleadment. The matter was adjourned with the direction by this Court for the service of notice on the standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan. He was served on 21/10/2000.

(6) THE m