UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VINEETA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPALLED by the determination made vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2013, analogously disposing of a batch of writ petitions including S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.10774/2012 and 12144/2012, instituted by the respondents herein, the University of Rajasthan and its functionaries are in appeal seeking redress.

(2.) BY the decision impugned, the appellants, in essence, have been directed not to replace the respondents/writ -petitioners subject, however to the stipulations, referred to therein, till the continuation of the ongoing Project/Scheme under the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, approved by the University Grants Commission (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the UGC').

(3.) A summary of the pleaded facts would outline the backdrop of the dissension. The UGC having decided to support research on the issue of social exclusion of theoretical and policy significance through teaching -cum -research centres in the universities, released grant -in -aid, amongst others, to the Registrar of the appellant -University for the 11th Plan, amongst others, for pursuing and sustaining the non -teaching staff for the posts of Research Assistant, Professional Assistant, Data Entry Operator and Library Attendant. On receipt of the approval of the UGC to this effect, the appellant -University advertised the posts through local daily and in response thereto, the respondents/writ -petitioners offered their candidature for the posts of Research Assistant, Professional Assistant, Data Entry Operator and Attendant. Eventually, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, duly constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the appellant -University, the respondent No.1/writ -petitioner -Smt. Vineeta Chauhan was appointed as Professional Assistant in the pay scale of 9300 -34800 and basic pay of Rs.13830/ -, the respondent No.2/writ -petitioner -Smt. Archana Verma was appointed as Attendant in the pay scale of 4750 -7440 and basic pay of Rs.6580/ - and the respondent No.3/writ -petitioner -Sazidullah Khan was appointed as Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of Rs.5200 -20200 and basic pay of Rs. 9840/ - and other allowances, as contemplated and attached to the posts till 31.03.2012 in DBSAW No.280/2014. Similarly in DBSAW No.281/2012, the respondent No.1/writ -petitioner - Dr. Dinesh Vyas and the respondent No.2/writ -petitioner - Ajay Kumar Meena were appointed as Professional Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.9300 -34800 and basic pay of Rs.13830/ - and other allowances, as contemplated and attached to the posts till 31.03.2012. The petitioners accordingly joined their posts and continued to render their services. While the matter rested at that, the appellant -University, by order dated 30.01.2012, accorded consolidated pay of Rs.11100/ - per month to respondents/writ - petitioners Dinesh Vyas, Ajay Kumar Meena, Smt. Vineeta Chauhan and Rs.5300/ - and 7900/ - per month to respondents/writ -petitioners, Smt. Archana and Sazidullah Khan respectively till 31.03.2012. Though, the respondents/writ -petitioners submitted representations ventilating their grievances, but the same were not heeded to. Finally, by Office Order dated 31.03.2012, their services were terminated as the term of the Project/Scheme stood concluded on and from that date. By separate order of even date, the Vice Chancellor of the appellant -University suspended the said Project/Scheme with effect from 01.04.2012 till communication from the UGC to the contrary. Eventually, by Office Order dated 30.03.2012, Annexure -13 to the writ petition, the UGC communicated its approval for continuation of the Project/Scheme during the XII Plan, on the same terms and conditions and advised the appellant -University to fill the posts approved by it from Plan to Plan period like other centres. Situated thus, the respondents/writ - petitioners, after unsuccessfully pleading with the appellant -University and its authorities, sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to secure their continuance in their respective posts during the XII Plan period. They as well sought for annulment of the order dated 31.03.2012, terminating their services and prayed for an appropriate writ for their restoration in the respective posts with effect from 01.04.2012 in continuation of their earlier appointment thereto, with full back wages on according the pay scale(s), as granted initially.