The legal principle established in the judgment revolves around the requirement for individuals to appear for interviews when applying for positions and the need for individual examination of cases for relief.

1. - The non-petitioner No. 1 Rajendra singh Rathore, filed a writ petition which came to be decided by learned Single Judge on 22.1.1991. Being aggrieved against this decision, the Agricultural University of Rajasthan, Bikaner, has preferred this appeal.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Supervisor on casual basis on 18.6.1985, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 475/- p.m. He approached before the learned Single Judge for two reliefs viz. equal pay for equal work and regularisation of his services. The learned Single Judge allowed him the first relief but the second relief was refused observing that the respondent petitioner wanted to enter into service through the back door as he did not appear for the interview when the post was advertised and he had applied for the job in pursuance of the advertisement. While allowing the writ petition in respect of equal pay for equal work, the learned Single Judges directed that the respondents in the writ petition should stop the mal practice and that they should see to that all the adhoc appointments made exceeding to the period of one year are regularised by way of regular appointments within a period of six months from the date of judgment. The appellant is aggrieved by this direction given by the learned Single Judge and also by the direction by which all the employees including the respondent No. 1 who were appointed on casual basis, have been directed to pay the regular pay scale from 5.4.1987. This is the date on which the respondent No. 1 and 13 others submitted a notice for demand of justice and claimed equal pay for equal work.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that they were not called upon to answer the case of all other employees of the University and the general relief and direction given by the learned Single Judge would create difficulties as some of the employees were selected only 25.2.1988 and there were other employees who were not in employment for more than six months. According to him unless each case is examined, the relief of equal pay for equal work can do not be granted from 5th April 1987. It is also contended that generally this relief is allowed from the date the employee approaches the Court by filing a writ petition and in this case the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 on January 1, 1988.1 It is submitted that regular selections were made on 25.4.1988 and from this date the appellant has already given the-regular pay scale to all the employees who were selected and this Court should fix this date as the date from which all the employees should be given the regular pay scale. According to him structures have been passed against the appellant without giving any opportunity and they should be quashed. Some reference has been made to the relief granted to the respondent No. 1 also by pointing out that even after holding that respondent No. 1 wants to enter through the back door, he has been granted the regular pay scale. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not contest the relief which has been granted to the respondent No. 1 and he confines his appeal only to the general observations and general directions granting relief to all adhoc employees of the University.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is satisfied as far as the relief granted to respondent No. 1 is concerned and he has admitted that necessary orders for giving regular pay scale to him have been passed by the appellant and for purposes of regularising his services, he will have to appear for the interview. It has been contended that a notice for demand of justice was given on 5.4.1987 by the respondent No. 1 and 13 others and they can be granted the relief of equal pay for equal work from this date. However, the respondent No. 1 is satisfied that the relief of equal pay for equal work granted w.e.f. 25.2.1988 is adequate in this case. As far as the mal practice referred to by the learned Sin