Maharana Pratap University Of ... vs Jagdish Prasad
2022 Latest Caselaw 8294 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 588/2022

1. Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology, Udaipur, through its Registrar.

2. The Director, Directorate Of Extension Education, Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology, Udaipur.

----Appellants

Versus

Jagdish Prasad S/o Sh. Vishan Prasad Kumawat, Resident Of 1/25, Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Hiran Magri, Sector 9, Udaipur. At Present Working As Computer Assistant At Directorate Of Extension Education, M.P.U.at., Udaipur.

                                                                   ----Respondent




For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
                                  Mr. Jai Naveen
For Respondent(s)           :     ---




       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S. S. SHINDE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                        Order

27/06/2022

This special appeal takes an exception to the impugned order

dated 22nd March, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.

It is not necessary to refer to the facts, however, as and

when it is necessary, reference will be made to the facts stated in

the impugned order.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits

that the learned Single Judge directed to regularize the services of

(2 of 4) [SAW-588/2022]

the respondent herein on the post of Computer Assistant or any

other equivalent post. However, when the respondent was

appointed initially in the year 1988 his appointment was on ad hoc

basis and under the project. While appointing respondent herein,

neither the procedure was followed nor the post was advertised

and therefore the respondent is not entitled to seek regularization

of his services. The sum and substance of the argument of learned

Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the post on which the

regularization was directed by the learned Single Judge was not in

existence after 1998 and appointment of the respondent was not

on vacant post and after following relevant procedure.

With the assistance of learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the appellants, we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the

appeal memo and annexures thereto and the reasons assigned by

the learned Single Judge in the order impugned in this appeal. The

learned Single Judge has made reference to service record of the

respondent in detail in the impugned order. Reference is also

made to the details furnished by the Subordinate Officer to the

Registrar of the respondent-University on the basis of the service

record of the petitioner and conclusion is drawn by the learned

Single Judge that the petitioner-therein was serving against the

duly sanctioned vacant post until the year 1998. Thereafter, the

petitioner rendered his services at various offices and salary was

charged from the vacant post of LDC uptill the year 2005. From

May, 2005 till date his salary was drawn against the post of Junior

Project Operator.

The learned Single Judge has perused the documents

produced on record by the parties and thereafter reached to the

conclusion that direction needs to be given to the appellant-

(3 of 4) [SAW-588/2022]

University to regularize the services of the respondent herein on

the post of Computer Assistant or equivalent post with effect from

the date of his initial appointment.

It is admitted position that the respondent retired from the

services of the appellant-University in the year 2017. The learned

Single Judge has made observations in the impugned order that

the similarly situated other two employees have been regularized

and the case of the respondent stands at par with them. There is

also a reference to the reported judgment wherein, in identical

facts situation, the Court has taken a view that the petitioner

therein may be entitled to regularization of services.

On independent scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeal

memo, as also the annexures thereto, we are of the opinion that

the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with

the material and documents which were placed on record by the

parties. It is not in dispute that even prior to 1998, the

respondent was given work on the establishment of the University

and thereafter he was placed in a particular pay scale. It would be

travesty of justice in case persons like the respondent is informed

after retirement and despite unblemished service record that he is

not entitled for regularization of service. The record produced by

the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge itself

indicates that the original petitioner has rendered his services in a

particular pay scale satisfactorily and with unblemished record. It

is not necessary for us to go into the details. Suffice it to say that

the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, which were in

the peculiar facts of the case, are not perverse and need no

interference by this Court in the special appeal.

(4 of 4) [SAW-588/2022]

For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain

this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J                                          (S. S. SHINDE),CJ


                                    22-MohitTak/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)