ORDER :

1. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. The petitioner was appointed as Computer Assistant on casual basis on 01.09.1983. On 10.05.1988, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Computer Assistant for a period of six months in regular pay scale with a condition that his services would be terminated if regular selection of the candidates takes place. The said appointment was made at the Livestock Research Station, Vallabhnagar under the control of the Sukhadia University, Udaipur. Later on, a separate Agriculture University was constituted and was named as Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner which, after bifurcation in the year 2000, was divided into two branches - the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. The petitioner who was initially appointed by the Sukhadia University, Udaipur became an employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and ultimately an employee of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur in the year 2000.

3. The appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and during that period he was even granted pay fixations, increments and all other service benefits. Even the first selection grade was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.1997.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 22.01.1998 was taken by the University of Bikaner to the effect that the services of all the adhoc employees would be regularized. As in pursuance to the said resolution, the services of the petitioner were not regularized therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2013, wherein the specific directions were given to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12849/2011; Mangi lal Lohar v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors. decided on 10.09.2013, which was inter alia decided in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.

5. The petitioner further submitted that even in a similar case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009) decided on 05.07.2011, orders were passed by this Court for regularization of services of the petitioner therein which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and ultimately the Department regularized the services of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt w.e.f. the initial date of appointment. The present petitioner therefore, moved a representation before the respondent-Authorities with a prayer to decide his case in light of the judgment passed in Mangi Lal Lohar’s case (supra) and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra). But vide order dated 26.04.2014, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that the post on which the petitioner was working had been abolished in the year 1998 and therefore, his services on the said post cannot be regularized. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is specifically covered by Mangi Lal Lohar and Sudhansu Roy Bhatt’s case (supra) and he deserves the same relief as had been granted to both the employees therein.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that:

(i) the post of Computer Assistant was not a sanctioned post and therefore, after abolition of the said post in the year 1998, the post itself did not exist in the respondent-University and hence his services could not have been regularized.

(ii) the petitioner was appointed for a particular Project and the said Project had ended up in the year 1998 after which the post was abolished and no such post now exist in the respondent-University.

(iii) the petitioner had been appointed by the predec