1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5300/02 Om Prakash Vaishnav vs. Kota Open University Date of order : 2/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajveer Sharma for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Calla for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to regularise him permanently against the post of Class-III with consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment from 14.10.1988. Shri Rajveer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Electrician on 14.10.1988 and in that order, reference of the petitioner as Class-IV employee was given. The order specifically states that the petitioner is a qualified electrician (I.T.I. Passed) and is working as an electrician. It was stated that as and when the post of Electrician is created, the petitioner would be considered for appointment on regular basis as an 2 Electrician and adjusted against such post and in the meantime, his services shall be treated as Electrician. The respondents are treating him as Class IV and accordingly requiring him to work as Class-IV. Learned counsel submitted that this Court by order dated 19.8.02 directed the respondents to maintain status quo and resultantly the petitioner is till now continuing as Class IV. Shri P.V. Calla, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was appointed as Class-IV and that the order clearly states that there was no post of Electrician and the aforesaid work now for the respondents has been conducted through Contractor and petitioner cannot refuse to discharge the duties of Class-IV. It was argued that the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of Class-III employee as appointment of the petitioner was made in Class IV and otherwise also there is no post of Class-III on which petitioner can be regularised. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors.-2006 3 SCC (L&S) 190. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 14.10.1988 on regular basis on the post of Class-IV employee in the scale of 750-940 for two years. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner was regularised. The order aforesaid contains a condition specifically with regard to the petitioner alone which read as under: “The person appearing at S.No.72 Shri Om Prakash Vaishnav is a qualified electrician (ITI passed) and is working as an electrician. But as no post of electrician exists in the University he is being placed in the category of Class IV employee. But he should be used as an electrician and should be considered for appointment of electrician as and when the post of electrician is created in the University.” It would be clear from the aforesaid condition that the respondents was appointed as Class IV employee but treated as a qualified Electrician and the admitted fact 4 is that he was working as Electrician and however when no post of Electrician exist, he was placed in Class-IV but his services were used as Electrician and he was considered as Electrician with the understanding that as and when the post of Electrician is created. The condition aforesaid would therefore be treated as a condition of petitioner's appointment in accordance with law. If at all the respondents wanted to change any such condition, they were required to provide him opportunity of hearing. At the same time, the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider his appointment having been made in Class III and on that basis direct the respondents to regularise his service as Class III employee cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to show that even till now the post of Electrician has been created in the University. If the petitioner when he was appointed in the year 1990 accepted such appointment with the aforesaid condition, he cannot now be permitted to challenge the same. 5 The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/