Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
AJAY RASTOGI, DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Kanhiya Lal Meena - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur - Respondents
D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 6324, 6325, 7487, 10653 of 2008
Decided On : 21-12-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr. N.K Garg, & Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Pareek, Mr. A.K Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. V.K Sharma, Mr. Ramdhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas, Advocate for UGC Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Ms. Suman Sharma, Advocates.
A law is constitutionally valid if it has a reasonable nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the means adopted to achieve that object.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITIES' TEACHERS (ABSORPTION OF TEMPORARY TEACHERS) ACT, 2008 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - CHALLENGE - VALIDITY OF ACT - ABSORPTION OF TEMPORARY TEACHERS - CONDITIONS - SCREENING COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - OVERRIDING EFFECT - REPEAL AND SAVINGS - RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITIES' TEACHERS AND OFFICERS (SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT) ACT, 1974 - SECTION 3(1), 3(3) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, prospective applicants for the post of Assistant Professor in their respective subjects in the University of Rajasthan, filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 (Act No. 22 of 2008) (Act of 2008). They contended that the Act, which allowed for the absorption of temporary teachers appointed under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (Act No. 18 of 1974) (Act of 1974), violated their right to fair consideration for regular selection and appointment against substantive posts. They argued that the ad hoc appointments made under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 were illegal and could not be regularized or absorbed under the Act of 2008. Additionally, they alleged that the Act of 2008 did not provide adequate representation and absorption of temporary teachers against the vacancies reserved for members of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), thereby violating the principles of reservation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act of 2008 was constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The court observed that the Act was enacted to address the issue of temporary teachers who had been working in the University of Rajasthan for almost two decades without being regularized. The court noted that the Act provided a reasonable nexus between the object of regularizing the services of temporary teachers and the means adopted to achieve that objective. The court also held that the Act did not violate the petitioners' right to fair consideration for regular selection and appointment against substantive posts, as the Act provided for a screening committee to assess the academic record and work of the temporary teachers before they could be absorbed into substantive posts. Additionally, the court held that the Act did not violate the principles of reservation for SCs and STs, as the Act was intended to regularize the services of temporary teachers who had already been appointed, and not to make fresh appointments.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act of 2008 was constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the absorption of temporary teachers under the Act of 2008 violated the petitioners' right to fair consideration for regular selection and appointment against substantive posts? 3. Whether the Act of 2008 violated the principles of reservation for SCs and STs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act of 2008 was constitutionally valid as it had a reasonable nexus between the object of regularizing the services of temporary teachers and the means adopted to achieve that objective. 2. The Act of 2008 did not violate the petitioners' right to fair consideration for regular selection and appointment against substantive posts, as the Act provided for a screening committee to assess the academic record and work of the temporary teachers before they could be absorbed into substantive posts. 3. The Act of 2008 did not violate the principles of reservation for SCs and STs, as the Act was intended to regularize the services of temporary teachers who had already been appointed, and not to make fresh appointments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, upholding the constitutional validity of the Act of 2008.
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the prospective applicants who are claiming themselves to be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in their respective subjects in the University of Rajasthan but the respondents since failed to hold open selection through the process of direct recruitment, as envisages u/Sec.3(1) of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 and permitted the adhoc appointments to continue for more than two decades including illegal appointees as alleged have been absorbed by the Act No. 22 of 2008 namely the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008, their right of fair consideration for regular selection against the substantive posts has been seriously jeopardized.
2. With the consent of the parties, we have taken the facts of lead matter from D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 6324/2008 [Dr. Rakesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan].
3. The academic profile of the individual petitioner regarding their qualification with track record has been disclosed in Schedule-A appended to the petition and their grievance is that the petitioners are members of open/reserved category and the process of holding regular selections has never been invoked by the respondents which the University was under an obligation to hold under the Act, 1974 and permitting adhoc appointment to continue for more than two decades, their absorption by the later Act of 2008, right of fair consideration and their participation in the selection process to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor against substantive posts and to become member of service under the Act, 1974 has been seriously jeopardized, which according to them is per se arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. The factual matrix of the matter is that the University of Rajasthan has been established under the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 and Sec.2(d) defines Teacher’ which includes Professors, Readers, Lecturers and all other persons engaged in the work of teaching in a Department of the University or in any other colleges affiliated or institutions approved by the University and the University Teachers are separately defined u/Sec.2(e) of the Act, 1946 which includes a person appointed by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction in the University. Sec.17 of the Act, 1946 defines different authorities of the University and Syndicate is one of them and constitution of Syndicate has been defined u/Sec.21 and its functions are envisaged u/Sec.22 of the Act, 1946. Sec.22(g) authorizes Syndicate to discharge as one of its function namely - subject to the provisions of the Act of 1946 and the statutes, to appoint officers, teachers and to define their duties, emoluments and conditions of service. Sec.22(l) authorizes Syndicate to recommend minimum scales of salaries of teachers in colleges. Thus, the Syndicate is a statutory body constituted u/Sec.21 of the Act, 1946 with the functions to be discharged as defined u/Sec.22 of the Act, 1946 which controls the affairs of University particularly in regard to the duties, emoluments, conditions of service and minimum scales of salaries of the University Teachers and employees appointed therein.
5. The service conditions of Teacher and Officers of the University are separately regulated by the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 is applicable to all the Universities in the State of Rajasthan and u/Sec.3(1) of the Act, 1974, appointment of Teachers and Officers are made on the recommendations of the statutory selection committee constituted u/Sec.4 of the Act, 1974 the only mode of regular/substantive appointment and to become a member of service under the Act, 1974 at the same time, if the University fails in making regular selections for any unforeseen emergent administrative reason/exigencies, c
