The main legal point established in the judgment is that a temporary employee or a casual wage worker cannot be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of continuance if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

The petitioner was initially appointed as lecturer in sociology in the university under the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 11th March, 1980 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of three months. Although the appointment was made for a period of three months but the same was continued till 31st July, 1983. In the session 1979-80 the university made an advertisement for the selection of lecturer in sociology. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement and appeared before the selection committee on 13th April, 1981. Selection committee selected three other persons on 26th September, 1982. The name of the petitioner was placed under serial No. 4 with the recommendation that in any case vacancy found, the petitioner may be given appointment. However, no such situation arose. Again on 26th September, 1982 another advertisement was made to fill up the post of temporary lecturer in Economics, Sociology, English, Hindi, Philosophy and History. Again selection was made on 31st July, 1983 and the petitioner was placed under serial No. 2. One Dr. Girja Prasad Dubey, who was the second empanelled candidate in the earlier selection now become first and appointment was given accordingly. The petitioner was given appointment in the post of temporary lecturer in the evening classes of the Institution. The appointment letter was given on 31st July, 1983. However, on 30th June, 1987 the university decided not to continue the evening classes and accordingly a decision was taken. However, the petitioner was retained to continue till 30th June, 1988. The service of the rest of the teachers were terminated.

2. The petitioner was again appointed on 6th August, 1988 to continue upto 31st August, 1988. In further he was appointed on 9th August, 1988 and was asked to continue. The petitioner continued till March, 1989. On 5th February, 1990, the petitioner was given an adjustment against the leave vacancy caused due to the long leave of Dr. N. S. Deshpandey. On 21st March, 1991 the petitioner was again appointed which was continued till 31st March, 1991. On 30th May, 1991 in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a direction was given by the Court upon the authorities in case further appointment for the post in question is to be made, the petitioners case also be considered by the appropriate respondents giving preference to his seniority and suitability. Petitioner contended that one Dr. R. P. Singh was similarly placed who, filed a writ petition and obtained an order under which the Executive Council of the University was directed to consider the case having requisite qualifications. According to the petitioner, on 18th January, 1990 the petitioner was appointed with regular pay scale against the leave vacancy caused due to long leave of Sri Sohan Ram Yadav which was extended and on 20th April, 1993, the petitioner was finally absorbed as a lecturer against the vacancy occurred due to promotion of one Dr. Shyamdhar Singh. It was further contended that pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in connection with regularization of service of the teachers appointed for the evening classes, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice A. N. Verma and decided to regularize the services of the teachers in various departments working in the temporary capacity for the evening classes.

3. The petitioners grievance is that he is similarly placed with Dr. R. P. Singh who had been given benefit of length of service rendered in the evening classes but the case of petitioner was ignored by the University inspite of the repeated demands. Ultimately the matter was forwarded to the University in respect of the petitioner and others. The detail report was filed, ultimately the University decided the matter on 12th May, 2004 after about nine years. It was held that the teachers will only be entitled for pensionary benefits and they will not be entitled for their seniority. The Executive Council ag