UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER versus PREM LATA AGARWAL

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 05-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 758 
UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER 
V. 
PREM LATA AGARWAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 919 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 05, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
ss. 3(2) and (3) - Pension - Ad hoc Professors/Lecturers 
- Continued in service - Claim for pensionary benefits -
Allowed by High Court - Held: The initial appointment would 
only protect the period fixed therein - There could not have 
been continuance of the service afte( the fixed duration as 
0 provided u/s 3(3) and such continuance is to be treated as 
null and void regard being had to the language employed in 
s.3(2) - Regulations do not take in their sweep an employee 
who is not regularly appointed - High Court has applied the 
doctrine of deemed confirmation which is impermissible -
E Orders of High Court are set aside - Rajasthan Universities' 
Teachers And Officers (Selection For Appointment) Act, 1974 
- University Pension Regulations, 1990 - Regulations 2(i), 
22 and 23 - Service Jaw - Pension. 
The respondents in the instant appeals were 
F appointed as ad hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers in 
terms of s. 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and 
Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974. Their 
services were terminated every year and fresh 
appointment orders were issued and, as such, they 
G continued till the age of superannuation. Thereafter they 
filed writ petitions claiming pensionary benefits stating 
that with the coming into force of the University Pension 
Regulations, 1990, deductions for the purpose were 
made from their salaries. The single Judge of the High 
H 
758 
UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN v. PREM LATA 
759 
AGARWAL 
Court allowed the writ petitions. The special appeals filed 
A 
by the University were dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of the Rajasthan 
B 
Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for 
Appointment) Act, 1974, when read in a conjoint manner, 
make it crystal clear that the legislature had imposed 
restrictions on the appointment, provided for the 
constitution of Selection Committees and also laid down c 
the procedure of the said committees. The intention of 
the legislature is to have teachers appointed on the basis 
of merit, regard being had to transparency, fairness, 
impartiality and total objectivity. Sub-s. (3) of s. 3 permits 
stop-gap arrangements and only covers ad hoc or part- o 
time teachers with a small duration. It is intended to serve 
the purpose of meeting the situation where an 
emergency occurs. A proper schematic analysis of the 
· provisions do not envisage any kind of ad hoc 
appointment or part-time appointment to remain in 
continuance. Some of the respondents continued with 
certain breaks and also due to intervention of the court. 
That apart, this Court had not acceded to their prayer of 
regularization. A distinction has to be made because of 
the language employed in the provisions between regular 
teachers and ad hoc teachers or part-time teachers who 
continue to work on the post sometimes due to fortuitous 
circumstances and sometimes due to the interdiction by 
E 
F 
the court. Their initial appointment could be regarded as 
legal for the limited purposes of s. 3(3) of the Act. That 
would only protect the period fixed therein. There could 
G 
not have been continuance of the service after the fixed 
duration as provided u/s 3(3) of the Act and such 
continuance is to be treated as null and void regard being 
had to the language employed in s.3(2) of the Act. That 
is how the Act operates in the field. That apart, regular 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A selection was required to be made by a High Powered 
Committee as provided u/s 4. [para 22 and 33] [773-F-H; 
774-A-F; 779-G] 
University of Kashmir and Others v. Dr. Mohd. Yasin and 
B Others 1974 (2) SCR 154 = 1974 (3) SCC 546; Anuradha 
Mukherjee (Smt) and Others v. Union of India and Others 
1996 (3) SCR 276 = 1996 (9) SCC 59; State of Haryana v. 
Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Another 2000 
(3) Suppl. SCR 322 = 2000 (8) SCC 4; R.S. Garg v. State 
C of U.P. and Others 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 120 = 2006 (6) 
sec 430 - relied on 
1.2. The Constitution Bench in Uma Devis's case 
made a distinction between an illegal appointment and an 
irregular appointment. Protection carved out in paragraph 
D 53 in Uma Devi could not be extended to the respondents 
basically for three re

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