IMPORTANT POINT
A person could not claim to be regularised in service only on basis that he had rendered a long service on ad hoc basis.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Claim for regularisation—Appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor of Law in Law College on ad hoc basis in 1977 and he worked in that post till May 1983 in regular pay-scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis—After the appellant acquired Ph.D. Degree, he was again appointed by University on post of Legal Assistant on 8.2.1990 on fixed salary of Rs. 2070/- per month as stop gap arrangement and appointment was extended from time to time till 31.3.2003 when his services were not extended—Batch of writ petitions, where appellant was also one petitioner, were filed in Supreme Court claiming grant of scale of Rs. 700/1600 recommended by Grant Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1973 when recommendations were not implemented in respect of petitioners who were Research Assistants/Associates—Supreme Court rejected demand of petitioners for placement in scale of Rs. 700-1600/- but directed that Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary on basic salary of Rs. 700/—Appellant filed writ petition on non-extension of his service after 31.3.2003—Single Judge allowed writ and directed University to take back the petitioner-appellant in service and absorb him on a regular post from date when vacancy arose—Division Bench modified order in appeal holding that regularisation was not to be granted as claimed but directed that appelant’s case was to be considered as per applicable rules—Appeal—Conclusion of High Court in the matter of regularisation suffered from no infirmity.
       Held : The order was challenged before the Division Bench which as noted above partly modified the order and held that regularization was not be granted as claimed but directed that the appellants case was to be considered on following the criteria as per the applicable rules. It was further directed that while subjecting appellant for selection process, pass service rendered by him was to be given due weightage. It was further directed that he was not to be denied regularization on the ground that he has become overage. But no other relief was given.(Para 8)
       The manner in which the claim for regularization has to be dealt has been the subject matter of this decision in several cases. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 1), a Constitution Bench of this Court has considered the matter at great length. In view of what been held therein, the conclusions of the High Court in the matter of regularization suffered from no infirmity. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, partly allowing the Civil Special Appeal filed by the present Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (in short the Union) and others questioning correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the order which was impugned before the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge held that order dated 25.4.2003 passed by the University was not sustainable and both the Vice Chancellor and the University were directed to take back the present appellant in service as Legal Assistant with all consequential benefits. The Single Judge directed the University and the Vice Chancellor to absorb the present appellant on a regular post from the date when the vacancy arose pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant acquired L.L.M Degree in the year 1977. The Udaipur University, re-christened as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor. The post also entitled the appellant to regular annual grade increments, which were consequently given during the course of his service in his capacity as assistant Professor. Later, in the year 1983 the appellant was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. He, however, was not selected and as a result whereof, his services were not continued after 31.5.1983. Thus, he worked as Assistant Professor from 14.11.1977 until 31.5.1983 in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the college of Law, Udaipur University. After a gap of about nine months, he was again appointed in the University on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant but the appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. Subsequently, the post of Legal Assistant was re-designated as Legal Associate by the order of the University dated 19.9.1987. As Legal Assistant/Legal Associate, appellant was paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1,200/- per month. By the order dated 19.6.1987 the consolidated salary was enhanced to Rs.1,620/- per month. On 3.3.1990, the University terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 14.11.1988 on account of the absence of the appellant from duty. The absence was occasioned by the fact of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph.D work at University of Delhi.

4. After he acquired the Ph.D Degree, the appellant was again appointed by the University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on fixed salary of Rs.2,070/- per month as stop-gap arrangement until 31.3.1991 or till the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal Associate, whichever was earlier. The appointment as Legal Associate was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him until 31.3.2003. After 31.3.2003 services were not extended, with the result that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the University. In this regard the Registrar of the University by its letter dated 25.4.2003 informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment of the appellant as Legal associate has not been extended beyond 31.3.2003.

5. In order to complete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer to a development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of writ petitions before this Court by Research Assistants/Associates on account of refusal of the University to grant to them the scale of Rs.700/1600 recommended by the Grant Commission with effect from 1.1.1973. Even though the University had implemented the UGC recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of members of teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the Research Assistants/Associates.

6. The appellant was also on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2007 Supreme(SC) 31

IMPORTANT POINTA person could not claim to be regularised in service only on basis that he had rendered a long service on ad hoc basis.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
A person could not claim to be regularised in service only on basis that he had rendered a long service on ad hoc basis.