TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ap or part-time arrangement can be made for more than six months. The temporary appointments of lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor cannot be made for more than one academic year. Further sub section (1) of section 3 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law as from the commencement of the said Act, no teacher or officer in any University in Rajasthan should be appointed except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under section 4. Section 4 of the Act provided for the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection of lecturers and officers in the University, and dealt with certain other aspects and section 5 provides for the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee. The other provisions of the said Act are not necessary to be referred to. It appears that for along time, indeed since the inception of the University, there have not been regular selections and appointments of lecturers in the University and as such the teachers' organisations were pressing for absorption on substantive posts of temporary lecturers who were working for long years. It is not necessary to deal in detail on this position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thai niyukti per sambandhit vishvidhyalay dwara vichar kiya jayega. (underlined by us) English version of the Ordinance reads as follows :- All temporary lecturers as were appointed as such on or before the 25th day of June, 1975 and are continuing as such at the commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1978) shall be considered by the University concerned for their absorption and substantive appointment on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted under section 4 subject to their fulfilling the conditions of eligibility including minimum qualifications prescribed by the University concerned under the relevant law as applicable on the respective dates of their temporary appointments and subject also to the avail ability of substantive vacancies of lecturers in the department concerned. (underlined by us) The learned single judge in his judgment out of which appeals were taken to the Division Bench and from which appeals arise came to the conclusion that (i) the judgment in Tiwari's case had become final as no appeal had been preferred therefrom and (ii) clause 3 of the 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration: (1) whether, fixing of the date here namely 25.6.1975 which happens to be the date on which emergency was clamped, for considering the lecturers of the University as eligible for screening under section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of temporary Lecturers,) Act, 1979 makes the Act invalid on the ground of differentiation between pre-emergency and post-emergency appointments, in other words whether the date 25th June, 1975 when the emergency was clamped on the country had any nexus with the purpose of this Act ? (2) what is true meaning of the expression used in section 3 of the Act ? The short facts are that there were irregular appointments in the Rajasthan University as lecturers for a very long time. In other words, lecturers had been temporarily appointed and continued from year to year but there were no rules for their absorption into permanent cadre. Furthermore it is undisputed that the services of the lecturers were terminated from time to time before vacation and they were reappointed so as to deprive them of the continuity of service which would have entitled them to permanent absorption or regularisation of their services. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s effect were issued on 17th August, 1978. Since the present appellants being the petitioners before the High Court were not appointed as lecturers on or before 25th June, 1975, they were treated as ineligible for being screened under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1978. It may be mentioned that some of them appeared in the selection subsequently and were found eligible except two of them, who have been absorbed as lecturers. The said Ordinance of 1978 as mentioned hereinbefore expired on 31st August, 1978 and a Bill was introduced and which after having undergone some amendments became the Act Of 1979 and is known as Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1979). Having received the assent of the Governor on 17th April, 1979 it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 18th April, 1979. The main alteration and amendment was that whereas the entire process of screening of appointment had to be finished by 31st August, 1978, the time was thereafter extended till 31st August, 1979. Dr. Rukmani and others applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the University. The Selection Committee held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appointment under section 3 after his rescreening under sub-section (2) of this section. (2) A temporary lecturer who was considered for substantive appointment by the Screening Committee referred to in section 4, but was not found suitable shall be again considered by the Screening Committee reconstituted in the same manner as is provided in that section. 6. Appointment to be under the Act No. 18 of 1974.- The lectures appointed to the substantive posts in pursuance of the provisions of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lectures) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1978) or of this Act shall be deemed to have been appointed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (Act No. 18 of 1974). Section 8 provides for the termination of the services of the temporary lecturers not substantively appointed and stated that the services of a temporary lecturer who was considered for substantive appointment under sections 3, 4 and 5 but was not substantively appointed on or before the 31st day of August, 1979 would, stand terminated on the expiry of that day. The learned single judge w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and the candidate fulfilling the prescribed qualifications. 25th day of June, 1975 has been suggested as crucial date taking into account the fact that we could take care of all appointments made before the national emergency which was clamped with effect from 25.6.1975. The two drafts of the Ordinance which were sent with the letter also contained the alteration in the date which had been changed from 1st day of September, 1973 to 25th June, 1975. This was also noted by the learned single judge. It was submitted before the learned single judge that certain representations were made by the University teachers and their associations to change the date from 1973 to 1975 and to substantiate that allegation, the above file was placed before the Court. However, the recommendations contained in the file, according to the learned Single judge, nowhere contained 25th June, 1975 as the date of the Ordinance. In their representations there was a demand that the earlier Government decision to fix the date of eligibility as 1st of September, 1973 should be altered to a date so as to cover cases of all other lecturers who had been appointed later on also. It is evident, therefore, in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment and order of the learned single judge. The State Government did not. The Division Bench was unable to accept the interpretation of section 3 of the Act as made by the learned single judge and was of the opinion that what was required was continuous employment from prior to 25th June, 1975 to 12th June, 1978 to be eligible for screening for absorption and the Division Bench was of the view that 25th June, 1975 was chosen such as any other date and there was no differentiation between pre-emergency and post- emergency appointees for absorption as lecturers. The Division Bench therefore set aside the decision of the learned single judge. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the original petitioners have preferred these appeals by special leave to this Court. As mentioned hereinbefore two points require consideration by us - (i) what is the true meaning of section 3 of the Act of 1979 and (ii) whether by choice of the date of 25th June, 1975, an invidious distinction has been made between pre-emergency appointees and post- emergency appointees, which has no nexus with the purpose of the Act and as such the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an authoritative pronouncement which will bind the courts in subsequent decisions in the interpretation of an Act which was passed soon thereafter, if on a proper construction of the subsequent enactment, it appears that the expression had not been correctly interpreted. We have noted the Hindi version of clause (3) as well as the English version. The English version presents no difficulty namely those who are appointed before 25.6.1975 and are continuing on the date when the Ordinance came into effect i.e. 12.6.1978. So therefore were continuing as such .. in the Act must mean that to be eligible for absorption these temporary lecturers should have been in continuous employment from a date prior to 25.6.1975 to the date of the commencement of the Ordinance of 1978 i.e. 12.6.1978. The object of this legislation was to provide for absorption of temporary lecturers of long standing. So therefore experience and continuous employment were necessary ingredients. The Hindi version of the Ordinance used the expression ke pratambh ke samaya is roop me karya kar rahe hein is capable of meaning and are continuing to work as such at the time of the commencement of the Ordinan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, cannot be accepted. Such a construction would be an unreasonable construction unwarranted by the language used in the provisions concerned. It is well-settled that if a particular period of experience is fixed for screening or t`or absorption, it is within the wisdom of the legislature, and what period should be sufficient for a particular job or a particular employment is not subject to judicial review. We need not refer to a large number of decisions on this point. Another contention was urged before us that if it was held that the proper interpretation of section 3 of the Act of 1979 is that in order to be eligible for screening for absorption one should be appointed before the 25th June, 1975 and continued to be a teacher on the day of the coming into operation of the Ordinance i.e. 12.6.1978 i.e. continuously for a period of about three years then the Act cannot apply to anyone. It was submitted that in Rajasthan universities there was the practice to keep temporary teachers with breaks and nobody could continuously hold the post for a continuous period of three years indeed not more than six months. It was urged that the practice prevalent in the universities was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Justice inter alia laid down the following principles to judge validity under Article 14 of the Constitution:- 1. The first part of article 14, which was adopted from the Irish Constitution, is a declaration of equality of the civil rights of all persons within the territories of India. It enshrines a basic principle of republicanism. The second part, which is a corollary of the first and is based on the last clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution, enjoins that equal protection shall be secured to all such persons in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties without discrimination of favouritism. It is a pledge of the protection of equal laws, that is, laws that operate alike on all persons under like circumstances. 2. The State, in the exercise of its governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on (1) [1919] 2 S.C. R. 476. different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, and it must possess for that purpose large powers of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such laws. 3. The Constitutional c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and. (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In support of the contention that 25th June, 1975 was chosen because of the emergency. reliance was placed on certain communications from the Vice-Chancellor which have been noticed by the learned single judge. The learned single judge came to the conclusion that was the basis i.e to differentiate between pre and post emergency appointees. The Division Bench did not accept this view. We are in agreement with the views of the Division Bench. It appears to us that the primary object of the Ordinance as well as of the Act was to provide for the absorption and regularisation of temporary lecturers of long standing in the universities in Rajasthan. What was intended was that the temporary teachers of long standing should be screened and 25th June, 1975 was taken r because it was as convenient a date as any other. While interpreting the provisions of any Act, what is necessity is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been continuing in some cases for the last ten years with a view to solve this long standing problem, it was considered necessary to regularise the appointments through specially constituted Screening Committees- Since, the academic session was about to commence and since the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was not in session and the Governor was satisfied that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action, he made and promulgated the Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978 on 8th day of June, 1978. If the intention of the legislature in fixing 25th June, 1975 in the impugned section of the Act was to make differentiation on the basis of pre-emergency and post- emergency temporary lecturers then there was no difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by the learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court and accepting the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants before us. However, as noted before, the division Bench of the High Court could not spell out such an intention from any of the provisions of the Ordinance as well as the Act. We respectfully agree. The Court can only search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence is there to make a distinction between pre-emergency and post-emergency appointees. Being in the employment at the time of coming into operation of the Ordinance was the pre-condition that is 12th June, 1978. Naturally, some day anterior to that date had to be indicated to ensure long tenure of experience and 25th June, 1975 was chosen because it was as good a date as any other. It may be borne in mind that wisdom or lack of wisdom in the action of the Government or legislature is not justiciable by court. See in this connection the observations of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Metropolis Theater Company v. City of Chicago and Ernest J. Magerstadt.1 To find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. There the learned judge Mr. Justice Mckenna observed as follows:- It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough recommendations, illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) [1983] 1 S C.C. 305=[1983] 2 S.C.R. 165. ments of 36 months' salary just preceding the date of retirement. Thus they suffered triple jeopardy viz. lower average emoluments absence of slab system and lower ceiling, and being so aggrieved they filed the writ petitions in this Court contending that the memoranda were in violation of Article 14. Petitioners I and 2 were retired pensioners of the Central Government who had retired prior to the specified date and petitioner 3 was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 186(), formed to ventilate the legitimate public problems and consistent with its objective it was espousing the cause of the petitioners all over the country. This Court held that pension was neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It was a payment for the past service rendered. The most practical raison d'etre for pension is the enability to provide for one self due to old age It created a vested right and was governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which were enacted in exercise of power conferred by Articles 309 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the regularisation of teachers, experience was the object to be found out. Certain period of experience was necessary for the basis for making the regularisation. The period of experience would be how much and the date of experience should begin from what time are within the legislative wisdom and there is nothing in this case to indicate that the starting point i.e., to be in service on or before 25.6.1975 was an arbitrary choice. Reliance in this connection may also be placed on the case of State of Mysore Anr. v. S.V. Narayanappa.(1) For the purpose Of the instant case it is not necessary to set out in detail all the facts of that case. The facts of that decision have a ring of familiarity with the facts of the present case. There also choosing a particular date did not make the Act bad for the purpose of regularisation of the appointments in the Mysore Government. Various submissions and some other decisions were placed before us in aid of rival submissions. In the view we have taken as indicated hereinbefore, it is not necessary to refer to these. (1) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 128. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned judges of the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
