S K KUMBHAJ Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EDUCATION, as the rest of the civilised world knows, is the surest way of eradicating the social and economic evils that plague our society. Without education democracy loses its meaning, efficacy and aspirations. India's economic progress during the last 55 years of independence has been crippled by the successive governments' dismal performance to provide free and universal education. Being a long term investment, education, as an agenda, has never found favour with any of the political parties who, on the other hand, give a false priority to short term populist policies of subsidies and reservations to enrich their vote-banks. Today, among almost all classes education is a burning issue. No home is silent these days when education comes up as a topic of conversation. In any highly competitive environment, education is the beginning and end of all families existence; it's like the proverbial `survival of the fittest. ' If you are not educated or are even semi- literate, you are doomed. And, only half knowledge is worse than being totally illiterate. We fret and talk ourselves blue in the face about the abyssmal state of education in India. Talking does not necessarily bring about change, action does, but at least it could be a start. Therefore, action is the crying need of the hour. Positive action that will put our education system back on the rails and take the right direction.

(2.) UNIVERSITY of Rajasthan having been among top five Universities in the country at given time. Top academicians and educationists in different faculties had the privilege of teaching in this Institution. Students coming out of this UNIVERSITY have adorned some very high offices in different fields throughout the country, however, with the degeneration started, the UNIVERSITY of Rajasthan now appears to be grasping for its last breath. The UNIVERSITY has now become field of dirty politics among teachers and the students. Having such glorious glooming past, realising the blooming dark clouds, the petitioners have knocked the doors of the Court with the following prayers:- i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned ordinances dated 27. 12. 96 and dated 13. 10. 97 in so far as it relates to taking away even the meagre chances of promotion/selection on the post of Professor to the Associate Professor like the petitioner under section 11 of the Act of 1974 under the alternate Personal Promotion Scheme provided due to the reason that year to year selections were not going to be made due to non constitution of the selection committees for regular promotions under section 5 of the Act of 1974 and even the alternate Personal Promotion under rule 11 has been taken away by the aforesaid Ordinance may be declared arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ii) By an another appropriate writ, order or direction stagnancy on the post of Associate professor (Reader) without giving any promotions on the post of Professors although more than 68 posts out of 80 posts are lying vacant be also declared arbitrary and discriminatory being in clear contravention of the verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as laid down in AIR 1988 (SC page-1033 and AIR 1989 (SC) 1972 and it may kindly be declared that at least a Reader has a right of selection/promotion on the post of Professor against the vacant posts. iii) By an another appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents in giving appointment/promotion/selection on the post of professor by picking and choosing under rule 3 (3) of the Act of 1974 be also declared arbitrary and discriminatory as the petitioner who is fully eligible to be promoted/selected even as per rule 3 (3) on the post of Professor has not been appointed/selected/promoted whereas other persons like Dr. S. K. Uppadhaya and Smt. Kalawati Prakash has been appointed/promoted on the post of Professor and the petitioner be at least be promoted/appointed on the post of Professor as per decision of Syndicate dated 20. 9. 97 and not giving appointment/promotion/selection to the petitioner on the post of Professor and taking decision for promotion two other persons be also declared arbitrary and discriminatory and the petitioner be promoted on the post of Professor at least under rule 3 (3) from the date the persons has been so promoted/appointed/selected. iv) By another appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fill up the 75 regular posts out of 80 existing posts of Professors as out of 80 existing posts of Professor only 5 regularly selected Professors are working and rest are lying vacant without any reason and rhyme and the respondents be directed to make selection/appointment/promotion on the post of Professor either by the selection committee under section 5 or under section 11 or under rule 3 (3) and all posts of Professors be ordered to be filled in for good functioning of the UNIVERSITY and for the betterment of the students and to remove stagnancy in promotions from the post of Associate Professors (Readers) so to generate efficiency and excellency in service as the stagnancy kills the desired to serve properly as hold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 (SC) page-1033. " (Names mentioned in the prayers may be different in all the petitions ).

(3.) MR. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, with all vehemence, refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the University. It has been submitted that petitioners may not get any personal relief now, however, if the things would have been done in time strictly in accordance with law, the benefit could be received by them as well. Be that as it may, since all the facts have come on record in regard to sheer irregularities and mis-deeds committed by the University authorities and the State Government, the Court should not shut its eyes and must pass necessary directions not only in the interest of the Institution but also the entire teaching staff and the students at large. MR. Soni also submitted that the University authorities are misleading and totally misinterpreting the interim orders passed by this Court. Only certain rights of the ad hoc temporary teaching staff have been protected only to the extent of minimum salary and continuing their services till regular selections are made.