AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Shortly stated, the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who were all appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the respondent University on ad hoc basis on different dates ranging between the year 1987 to the year 1990, are entitled to the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from the date of their initial appointment or not. The petitioners'' services were procured in pursuance of different advertisements issued by the respondent University for appointment of teaching faculties on ad hoc basis.
The principal ground of challenge to the petitioners'' claim as advanced before the Court by Sh. Punia, learned senior counsel representing the respondent University was on the issue that as the initial appointment of the petitioners was on purely ad hoc basis and without undergoing the procedure of selection by a Selection Committee, they were not entitled to the benefit of CAS particularly looking to the Clause vi thereof. Clause vi of CAS reads as below:-
"vi. The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. ad hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided
(a) the ad-hoc service was of more than one year duration
(b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(c) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc service, without any break."
The petitioners'' assertion was that they had been appointed against regular vacancies after being subjected to a process of selection through the Selection Committee. The petitioners, in order to substantiate their claim for grant of benefit of CAS, bank upon the judgment dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14653/2010 "Rajeev Saxena and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr." It is an admitted position that the said judgment was challenged by the State by filing a Letters Patent Appeal before the Hon''ble Division Bench and the Hon''ble Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal. It is further stated that the judgment has received a seal of approval from the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well.
A few relevant observations from the judgment dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Rajeev Saxena''s case, which have a material bearing for deciding the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions, are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-
"The petitioners were initially appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) and continued thereafter without break for several years. The University of Rajasthan appointed large number of Lecturers on temporary basis under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (for short ''the Act of 1974''). The aforesaid provision was permitting appointment on temporary basis. The provision was repealed few years back. The University used to remove temporary Lecturers by the end of session, thus number of writ petitions were filed to seek direction for continuance of service of temporary Lecturers till regular selection. To overcome with the situation prevalent in the University, Government took a decision that Lecturers appointed on temporary basis may be regularized. Accordingly, Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008 (for short ''the Act of 2008'') was brought. The respondents then issued an order on 5.8.2008 to absorb all the Assistant Professors. It was clarified that prior to 5.8.2008, they would not be entitled to any financial benefit and consequential promotion etc. Their seniority was ordered to be determined in accordance with Rule 5(i) and (ii). The order aforesaid was issued pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate. The claim of the petitioner is now for benefit of Career Advance Scheme (in short ''CAS'') where one is assured for timely promotion. The CAS Scheme was introduced by the University Grants Commission.
The petitioners have already rendered required length of service to get benefit under CAS. The Assistant Professor is eligible for placement in senior scale and promotion to the post of Associated Professor. In the same way, Associated Professor is entitled for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme. The required length of service is necessary for that purpose. The respondent University refused to count length of service from the initial date of appointment. It is despite of absorption from initial date of appointment and confirmation thereafter on expiry of period of two years. The benefit of CAS is to remove stagnation and petitioners are those who have stagnated on one and the same post for the last so many years. In the meanwhile, State Government issued an order on 19.1.2009 to direct that service of those absorbers under the Act of 2008 would be counted form the date of absorption. The State of Rajasthan again sent a letter to the respondent University on 18.3.2009 clarifying that absorption of the petitioners are under a Special Act, thus benefit of increment would be admissible on completion of one year service. This was in view of the fact that the petitioners were not appointed as per the provisions of the Act of 1974 but absorbed under the Special Act of 2008. The Regisrar of the University, however, sought clarification regarding implementation of CAS and fixation of pay pursuant to the revision of pay scale as per recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. It was also indicated that those who have already rendered 15 to 20 years of service, are entitled for benefit of CAS The University Grants Commission agreed to grant 80% of the pay on fixation pursuant to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission.
The University of Rajasthan, in the meanwhile, issued an order on 3.3.2010 directing all the Heads of the Departments to initiate process for CAS as per the UGC Guidelines as amended from time to time. All the Assistant Professors and Associated Professors were requested to submit their Bio-Data along with Appraisal Forms for consideration of their cases under CAS. The State Government, however, issued an order on 5.5.2010 clarifying that length of service of the Assistant Professor would be counted from the date of absorption and not from the initial date of appointment. The University of Rajasthan, however, sent a detailed letter to the State of Rajasthan informing that as to how many Assistant Professors have been absorbed and grant of benefit under the CAS will not cause extra financial burden on the State Government, if their past service is counted for grant of benefit of CAS."
"From the narration of the facts, it comes out that petitioners are those who were not appointed initially on regular basis. They were largely appointed as per Section 3(3) of the Act of 1974 then existing. Initially, petitioners were appointed after issuance of the advertisement, however, later appointments were made even without calling applications from the eligible candidates by issuing advertisement. The petitioners are, however, working for last 10 to 25 years. The Government brought Act of 2008 to absorb services of those who are working on temporary basis for last several years. The respondent University, accordingly, passed an order for absorption of the petitioners on 5.8.2008. The perusal of the aforesaid order reveals absorption from the initial date of appointment with confirmation after a period of two years, but they have not been made entitled to the financial benefit and consequential promotion till passing of the order dated 5.8.2008."
Learned counsel for the petitioners urge that as the controversy involved in Rajeev Saxena''s case is exactly identical to the one involved in the cases at hand and as the judgment has attained finality, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief which was extended to their peers in the Rajasthan University.
Upon evaluating the facts of the case at hand in context to the Single Bench judgment in Rajeev Saxena''s case (supra), it is evident that the factual scenario in both the matters is exactly identical. The petitioners have placed on record, with an additional affidavit, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management held on 28.7.2008, whereby it was decided to regularize the petitioners'' services after they had served the university on ad hoc basis for periods ranging between the year 1987 to the year 1990. The most material and relevant part of the minutes is quoted hereinbelow:-
"The State be requested to accord the approval for absorption and substantive appointment from the date of initial appointment as Assistant Professor/Lecturer to the above Teachers."
What is noteworthy from the above resolution of the Board of Management is that the University has taken a clear stand that the petitioners should be treated substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointments and has recommended their cases to the State Government for its approval. There is nothing on record to show that this proposal of the University was ever turned down by the State Government. The same was the situation in the case of Rajeev Saxena and others (supra). The argument advanced by Sh. Punia, learned counsel for the University that the University is opposed to the prayer of the petitioners for being considered as being in regular service from the date of initial appointment, has to be noticed only for the sake of rejection because he candidly conceded during the course of arguments that the minutes recorded by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 28.7.2008 were not brought to his knowledge when he addressed such arguments before the Court. The stand of the parties being as such before the Court, it is evident that an exactly identical factual scenario was painted before this Court in Saxena and Ors.''s case (supra), wherein the University of Rajasthan supported the case of the teachers, inasmuch as, even the order of absorption dated 5.8.2008 contained a stipulation that the petitioners therein, subject to the approval by the State Government were being absorbed from the date of their initial appointment with confirmation after serving for a period of two years. The University recommended their cases to the State for extending the consequential monetary benefits. However, they were deprived of the same upon which, they approached the Court in writ jurisdiction and their writ petitions were allowed as noted above, by the order dated 28.5.2012. It is also noticed that the State during the course of the hearing of the instant writ petitions has taken more or less a similar stance as was adopted by it before the Bench at Jaipur in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions. However, no document has been placed on record to show that the recommendation made by the University pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Management meeting dated 28.7.2008 was ever turned down by the State. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that on facts as well as law, the controversy involved in the cases at hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be and are allowed in light of the judgment rendered in Rajeev Saxena''s case (supra). The petitioners shall be granted the financial benefits by applying the CAS Scheme w.e.f. 28.7.2008 which is the date of their confirmation in service. All the monetary benefits accruing to the petitioners under this order shall be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the amount accrued shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 28.7.2008 till the date of actual payment.
No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.