Service rendered in temporary/ad-hoc capacity cannot be counted for Career Advancement Scheme benefits; only regular service qualifies for eligibility.

Judgment

Reserved on :: 24/03/2025

Pronounced on :: 23/05/2025

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains as to whether the previous service rendered on temporary/ ad-hoc basis can be counted for grant of benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (herein after referred to as “CAS”). Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned addendum and non- consideration of the petitioners’ candidature for want of certain eligibility conditions. Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in fact, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 14181/2023 titled as Dr. Sadhana Kansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the purposes of this adjudication.

2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that though the subject matter in the writ petitions is substantially similar or pertains to an identical legal issue, the factual matrix varies to some extent in each case. In certain writ petitions, there are distinguishing features such as a break in the continuity of service, the involvement of a previous employer under private management, and issues concerning the recovery of monetary benefits. These factual distinctions, while not altering the core legal question, may have a bearing on the reliefs sought and the adjudication of individual claims. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required.

3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background as stated in the lead petition is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. For instance the salient aspects and plea made that is vital for adjudication as stated in the petitions are, therefore, stated and summarized as under:

3.1 SBCWP No. 14181/2023 is filed for issuance of writ in nature of mandamus or to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of senior scale and selection scale under the CAS while counting service from initial date of appointment and to revise the pay of the petitioner accordingly.

3.1.1 The nitty-gritty of the matter is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of lecturer (Sanskrit) on 07.07.1986 on temporary basis at Mohta College, Rajgarh Dist. Churu – a private institution, which was renewed at various intervals. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years vide appointment letter dated 27.04.1989, and the service of the petitioner was confirmed by the office letter dated 25.11.1991. Despite the same the petitioner was not considered for CAS. Resultantly a writ petition was filed by the petitioner (Sangeeta & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Civil Writ Petition No.6793/2005) which was decided by order dated 20.12.2011.

3.1.2 It is noted that the petitioner participated in the process of regular recruitment pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). Upon being duly selected and found eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), the petitioner was offered and accepted the appointment. Consequently, the petitioner was formally appointed and joined duties on 31.07.1996, at Shri Moha Lal Jalan Government College, Ratangarh, Rajasthan. However, the petitioner claimed benefit under the CAS, which was disagreed by the respondents for the reason that th