Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture vs. Jagdish Prasad

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

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.

Versus

----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 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 appellantUniversity 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.

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/-