DR. (MRS.) SUSHMA SHARMA ETC. ETC versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 12-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/'\, 
. ' 
DR. (MRS.) SUSHMA SHARMA ETC. ETC 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
243 
--...,) 
March 12, 1985 
B 
I [E. s. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
~ 
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) 
Act 1979, Section 3 Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary 
Lecturers) Ordinance 1978, Clause 3 & The Rajasthan Universities Teachers 
and Offfcers (Special Condition~' of Service) Act! 1974. 
C 
Temporary 
Lecturer~· in the service of the University for long years-
June 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointffzent, to be eligible for absorptioil 
in permanent service·-Choice o] date-Whether arbitrary and discriminatory. 
Constitution of India 1950 Articles 14 & 16. 
June 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointment for temporary 
lecturer~ 
to be eligible for permanent appointn1ent-Presciption of date-Whether has« 
prescribed rational nexus or arbitrary. 
The Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of 
Service) Act, 1974 provided for an elaborate procedure for recruitment of tea-
chers and officers in the universities but no selection had been made on the basis 
of that Act and all ap
0pointment.s were made on a temporary basis. 
Section 3 
of the Act provided that no stop gap or part-time arrangement can be made for 
more than six months. 
The temporary appointments of lecturers-by the Vice-
Chancellor .could not be made for more than one academic year. 
It further 
provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw, no teacher 
or officer in any University in Rajasthan should be appointed except on the 
recommendation of the Selection <;:ommittee constituted under section 4. 
For a long time since the inception of the University, there had been no 
regular selections and appointments of lecturers in the University and the 
teachers' organisations were pressing for absorption on 
subst~tive posts, of 
temporary -lecturers who were working· 
~or_ long y~rs. The Government of 
Rajasthan therefore promulgated the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absor-
ption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978. 
Clause 3 of the said Ordi- · 
nance had an English version as well as a Hindi ·version. 
Hindi version in 
Roman script read as follows : 
"Samast asthai pradhyap)c<.o ke siimbandh me jo is roop me 25 .June, 
1975 ko ya usse purve niyukat 
k~ye gaye the a._ur jo Rajasthan 
Vishvavidhyalay 
Adhyapak 
(Asthai 
Pradhyapki Ka Amelan) 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[! 985] 3 S.C.R. 
Adhyadesh, 1978 
(1978 ka Adhyadesh s. 
5) 
ke prarambh ke 
samaya is roop me karya kar rahe he in, unki apni, apni. ........... , 
The English version of the Ordinance reads as follows :-
"All temporary lecturers as were appointed as such on or before the 
25th day of June, 1975 and are continuing as such at the commence-
ment of the Rajasthan Universities 
Teachers 
(Absorption 
of 
Temporary Lecturers Ordinance, 1978 Ordinance No. 5 of 1978)," 
· 
·On 18th April, 1978 the Ordinance was replaced by an Act namely the~
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) ·Act, 
1979 in which identical language was used, 
. 
The appellants in the appeals who were temporary lecturers and teachers, 
were appointed temporarily by the Vice·Chancellor by virtue of section 20A of 
the Universities of Rajasthan Act, 1946. 
It was the contention of the appellants in their writ petitions that lecturers 
had been temporarily appointed and continued from time to time but there were 
no rules for their absorption into permanent cadre. 
The services of the lectu-
rers were, terminated from time to time before vacation and they were re-
appointed so as to deprive them of the continuity of service which would have 
entitled them to permanent absorption or regularisation of their service. 
' 
The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that (I) the 
judgment in Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. University of Rajasthan and Others 
had become final as no appeals had been preferred therefrom. and (2) clause 3 
of the 1978 Ordinance means that in drder to be eligible for screening for 
absorption a lecturer must be in the appointment of the University any time or 
for any period before 25-6-1975 and must be a temporary teacher on 12-6-1978 
even though in between he or she n1ight not have been at all in service. 
The Single Judge followed the interpretation of Section 3 as made in 
Tiwari' s -case a'nd, was of the opinion that a clear dif

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.