RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule the petitioners sought directions against proposed termination of their services on 31. 3. 98, and to continue them in service till regularly selected candidates are made available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission to replace them.

(2.) THE facts are borrowed from writ petition no. 884/98. THE respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 6. 10. 97 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in different subjects for a period of four months or till the availability of selected candidates from the R. P. S. C. , whichever is earlier. THE petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Lecturer. He was found suitable for the appointment to the post and was appointed in a College at Chmanpura Shahpura vide order dt. 15. 11. 97 upto 31. 3. 98. THE petitioner joined his duties on 18. 11. 97. THEreafter the R. P. S. C. also advertised posts to be filled in by selection vide advertisement no. 5/97-98 dt. 17. 12. 97. THE applications were required to be submitted to the R. P. S. C. upto 9. 2. 98. THE petitioner has also applied for the post. THE petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule were also appointed as Lecturers for the period ending on 31. 3. 98.

(3.) AS against this Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed for a fixed term and therefore they have no right whatsoever to continue after 31. 3. 98. He canvassed that neither there is violation of any rule or direction in appointing the petitioners for a fixed term. According to him the petitioners had accepted the terms of the appointment and they should not be permitted to challenge those terms. He submitted that the ratio of the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners is not that in each and every case the court should direct the continuance of the services of the teachers appointed on adhoc basis. He tried to distinguish the cases cited by Mr. Mridul. Relying on the cases of Dr. L. M. Nath vs. Dr. S. K. Kacker & Ors. (5), Deva Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (6), Dr. Aruna Pandey vs. Malviya Regional Engineering College (7), Smt. Shashi vs. State of Raj. (8) and Rajkiya Mahavidhyalaya Aasthai Vyakhyata Sangharsh Samiti vs. State of Raj. (9), Mr. Singhvi contended that the petitioners who were appointed on adhoc basis do not have a right to continue in service after 31. 3. 98.