Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 491
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Yamuna Shanker Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2006 of 2003
Decided On : May 27, 2003
Govind Mathur & A.K. Rajvanshy, for Petitioners V.D. Vyas, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, Sec. 3(3) – Non- extension of services – Petitioners were having requisite qualifications – Appointed on ad-hoc basis – Term extended from time to time for 11 years – Performance was satisfactory – Supreme Courts directions to absorb their services – Term not extended – Held – If a person possessing requisite qualifications is allowed to continue in service for fairly a long period, his appointment cannot be said to be stop-gap or fortuitous or ad-hoc – Violation of directions of Supreme Court – Infringed legal rights – Directed to absorb on regular posts from the date of vacancies. (Paras 17, 19, 21 & 23)
Since the petitioner is doing the job as Legal Associate in the employment of the respondents for fairly long period for more than 11 years, therefore, his appointment though on the face of it appears to be adhoc appointment, but it should not be treated as adhoc appointment and not only this, in the present case, the Honble Supreme Court through judgment Annex.3 had directed the respondents to prepare a scheme for absorbing such type of persons meaning thereby the Honble Supreme Court has expressed the intention that such persons should be absorbed and they should not be left in lurch. (Para 17)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2006/2003
(2). This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.5.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 25.4.2003 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur by which the services of the petitioner were not extended after 31.3.2002 and the impugned show cause notice dated 31.1.2003 (Annex.6) issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 Registrar, Mohanlal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur be quashed and a set aside and the respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner on the regular vacant post of Assistant Professor.
(3). The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-
The petitioner after doing the LL.M. in the year 1977 was appointed as Assistant Professor at College of Law in Udaipur University, later on, termed as Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur, on adhoc basis and worked upto 31.5.1983 and, thereafter, his services were discontinued.
The further case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 23.2.1984, he was again appointed on the post of Legal Assistant in the employment of the respondents on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/- per month.
The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1988, he proceeded on leave for doing Ph. D. work at New Delhi and his leave was sanctioned upto 13.11.1988, but thereafter, his services were terminated vide order dated 3.3.1990 treating him absent from duties with effect from 14.11.1988.
The further case of the petitioner is that after completion of Ph. D. work, he returned to Udaipur in the month of January, 1991 and the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Legal Associate vide order dated 8.2.1991 (Annex.1), which reads as follows:-
``The Vice-Chancellor is pleased to appoint Shri Y.S. Sharma as Legal Associate, College of Law, Udaipur as stop-gap- arrangement upto 31.3.1991 or till a selected candidate joins on the post of Associate Professor, whichever is earlier on a fixed amount of Rs. 2070/- p.m. with effect from the date he joins his duties in pursuance of this order.
The further case of the petitioner is that since 8.2.1991, he is continuously working as Legal Associate in the employment of the respondents and his services were extended from time to time and lastly, the services of the present petitioner as well as petitioner Dr. D.K. Jain of Writ Petition No. 1984/2003 were extended upto 31.3.2003 through order Annex.2 dated 13/17.1.2003.
The further case of the petitioner is that he filed a writ petition No. 563/1989 before the Honble Supreme Court in respect of seeking relief for equal pay for equal work and for creation of post etc. etc. and that writ petition was decided by the Honble Supreme Court through judgment dated 16.9.1992, a copy of which is marked as Annex.3 and the last para of that judgment of Honble Supreme Court is quoted here:-
``Before we part we must mention that counsel for the petitioners had urged that even though the petitioners have put in long years as Research Associates they are still treated as ad hoc employees with no security of tenure. We would leave it to the authorities to consider the feasibility of preparing a scheme whereunder such Research Associates can be absorbed in the regular cadre of Research Assistants as and when vacancies arise. Since the educational requirements, process of selection and job- charts are almost identical such a scheme can be of mutual benefit to the employees as well as the University, the employees getting security of tenure and University getting experienced hands. We would expect the University to examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date.
The further case of the
