ORDER :

1. All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and, thus, the same are being decided conjointly by this common order.

2. The facts, however, are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15081/2021 (Omprakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

3. The petitioner was engaged as a Class IV employee by the respondent University through a Contractor on 03.05.2005; he is continuing as such till today, of course, through different contractors/placement agencies.

4. The petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition bearing number 12596/2018 seeking regularization of his services on the post of Class IV. When the bunch of writ petitions alongwith writ petition filed by the petitioner was being heard by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2020 (Annexure-12), an assertion was made on behalf of the petitioner that services of one Manoj Dave working as a contractual employee through placement agency has been regularized by the respondent – University.

5. It is to be noted that such assertion made by the petitioner was disputed by the respondent – University, as can be discerned by reading Para 4 of the judgment aforesaid. The Court nevertheless deemed it appropriate to dispose of those writ petitions per viam order dated 04.08.2020 with the direction to the respondent – University to consider petitioner’s representation for regularization in accordance with law.

6. In furtherance of above order, the petitioner moved a representation dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure-13) before the Registrar, University claiming regularization of his services.

7. The respondent – University constituted a committee, which considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected the same by way of a detailed order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-14). Resultantly, petitioner’s right of regularization has been repudiated.

8. Impugning the order dated 06.04.2021, Mr. Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though services of one Manoj Dave had been regularized by the respondent – University by way of the order dated 03.11.2017, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioner, who has been working with the respondent – University for more than fifteen years. He added that the respondent – University has always found petitioner’s services to be satisfactory and certificate in this regard had also been issued by the University from time to time.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who has been working for the last so many years has become age barred and if the respondent – University does not regularize the petitioner’s services, his future will be jeopardized, inasmuch as, he will not be able to get employment anywhere.

10. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8660/2011), wherein this Court had directed the Jai Narayan Vyas University to regularize the services of similarly situated employee/petitioner therein. He informed the Court that the said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench and the Apex Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through Table Agenda No.1 of the minutes of meeting dated 24.04.2015 to contend that the respondent – University in the meeting decided to regularize the services of the contractual employee. Reliance was also placed on agenda Nos. 6 & 12 of the minutes of meeting dated 15.01.2021.

12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments :

(i) State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesri & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587.

(ii) Sheo Narayan Nagar & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432.

(iii) Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238.

(iv) Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 (3) SLR 6