Univ.Of Rajasthan & Anr vs Prem Lata Agarwal

3. Be it noted, as the main judgment was rendered in the case of Prem Lata Agarwal, we shall refer to the facts adumbrated therein. However, the initial dates of appointment and the dates of superannuation in case of every respondent as the same would be relevant in the course of delineation of the lis in question are stated herein. Prem Lata Agarwal, Vijaya Kabra, Janki D. Moorjani, B.K. Joshi and M.C. Goyal, the respondents herein, were appointed on 5.1.1981, 22.8.1984, 20.8.1985, 16.5.1978 and 5.8.1983 and stood superannuated on 31.3.2001, 31.8.2007, 30.6.2007, 31.1.2002 and 30.11.2007 respectively. Respondent-Prem Lata Agarwal and some others were appointed vide Office Order dated 5.1.1981 by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of power vested in him for making the stop gap arrangement under Section 3(3) of the Act as Assistant Professors (Lecturers) in the subject of Chemistry. It was clearly mentioned in the letter of appointment that it was ad hoc in nature and it would continue upto the last working day of the current academic session or till further orders, whichever was earlier. The respondent and others were allowed to continue on the basis of the appointment letters issued from time to time. It may be noted that their services were terminated every year and fresh appointment orders were issued. In this manner, the respondent was allowed to continue upto 31.7.1988.

4. At that juncture, the ad hoc teachers had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a mandamus for the regularization of the services but such a relief was declined. S.L.P. No. 18993 of 1991 was preferred wherein two questions were raised, namely, (i) whether a lecturer duly selected by the selection committee for being appointed temporarily should automatically be confirmed on the post which he was holding for the past 7 years on temporary basis after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee under the provisions of the Act and approved by the syndicate of the university; and (ii) whether apart from the considerations of selection by the selection committee, did a lecturer teaching for the past 7 years acquire a right to continue on that post. This Court vide order dated 20th April, 1992, dismissed the said special leave petition. Though the special leave petition was dismissed and their right to be regularized was not accepted by this Court, yet they continued in service as the orders of termination could not be implemented. It is worth noticing that another petition by ad hoc appointees was filed in 1985 before the High Court wherein they claimed equal pay on the foundation of parity with the regularly appointed Assistant Lecturers. The High Court, vide order dated 1.3.1986, passed the following order:-

5. The university, being grieved by the aforesaid order, preferred Special Leave Petition No. 13 of 1998 and number of S.L.Ps. wherein this Court passed the following order:-

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the Rajasthan Universities’ Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Ordinance, 2008 (3 of 2008) was made and promulgated by the Governor with a purpose of providing absorption of temporary teachers of long standing, working in the universities of Rajasthan. After the said regulations came into existence on 12th June, 2008, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 2740 of 2010 putting forth the grievance that pensionary benefits had been denied to her after retirement. The learned Single Judge referred to the regulations and took note of the fact that she had continued in service for a period of 20 years and her option for grant of pension was accepted by the university and pursuant to such acceptance they deposited their contribution and, hence, the university was estopped to take a somersault the stand that she was not entitled to receive pension under the Regulations of 1990. That apart, the learned single Judge opined that the nature of her appointment could not be treated as ad hoc and temporary, regard being had to the length of service. Being of this view, he allowed the writ petition and directed the pensionary benefits be extended to her within a period of three months after completing the formalities.

25. In Anuradha Mukherjee (Smt) and others v. Union of India and others[5], this Court, while dealing with the issue of seniority, opined that when an employee is appointed de hors the Rules, he cannot get seniority from the date of his initial appointment but from the date on which he is actually selected and appointed in accordance with the Rules.

(iii) that this Court had declined to regularize their services in 1998.

38. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the High Court are set aside. However, if any amount has been paid on any count to any of the respondents in the appeals pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court, the same shall not be recovered on any count. There shall be no order as to costs.

February 05, 2013