# /'\, . ' DR. (MRS.) SUSHMA SHARMA ETC. ETC v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

- **Citation:** [1985] 3 S.C.R. 243
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1985-03-12
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-mrs-sushma-sharma-etc-etc-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-8919
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

/'\,
. '
DR. (MRS.) SUSHMA SHARMA ETC. ETC
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
243
--...,)
March 12, 1985
B
I [E. s. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]
~
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers)
Act 1979, Section 3 Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary
Lecturers) Ordinance 1978, Clause 3 & The Rajasthan Universities Teachers
and Offfcers (Special Condition~' of Service) Act! 1974.
C
Temporary
Lecturer~· in the service of the University for long yearsJune 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointffzent, to be eligible for absorptioil
in permanent service·-Choice o] date-Whether arbitrary and discriminatory.
Constitution of India 1950 Articles 14 & 16.
June 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointment for temporary
lecturer~
to be eligible for permanent appointn1ent-Presciption of date-Whether has«
prescribed rational nexus or arbitrary.
The Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of
Service) Act, 1974 provided for an elaborate procedure for recruitment of teachers and officers in the universities but no selection had been made on the basis
of that Act and all ap
0pointment.s were made on a temporary basis.
Section 3
of the Act provided that no stop gap or part-time arrangement can be made for
more than six months.
The temporary appointments of lecturers-by the ViceChancellor .could not be made for more than one academic year.
It further
provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw, no teacher
or officer in any University in Rajasthan should be appointed except on the
recommendation of the Selection <;:ommittee constituted under section 4.
For a long time since the inception of the University, there had been no
regular selections and appointments of lecturers in the University and the
teachers' organisations were pressing for absorption on
subst~tive posts, of
temporary -lecturers who were working·
~or_ long y~rs. The Government of
Rajasthan therefore promulgated the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978.
Clause 3 of the said Ordi- ·
nance had an English version as well as a Hindi ·version.
Hindi version in
Roman script read as follows :
"Samast asthai pradhyap)c<.o ke siimbandh me jo is roop me 25 .June,
1975 ko ya usse purve niyukat
k~ye gaye the a._ur jo Rajasthan
Vishvavidhyalay
Adhyapak
(Asthai
Pradhyapki Ka Amelan)
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[! 985] 3 S.C.R.
Adhyadesh, 1978
(1978 ka Adhyadesh s.
5)
ke prarambh ke
samaya is roop me karya kar rahe he in, unki apni, apni. ........... ,
The 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),"
·
·On 18th April, 1978 the Ordinance was replaced by an Act namely the~
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) ·Act,
1979 in which identical language was used,
.
The appellants in the appeals who were temporary lecturers and teachers,
were appointed temporarily by the Vice·Chancellor by virtue of section 20A of
the Universities of Rajasthan Act, 1946.
It was the contention of the appellants in their writ petitions that lecturers
had been temporarily appointed and continued from time to time but there were
no rules for their absorption into permanent cadre.
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 service.
'
The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that (I) the
judgment in Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. University of Rajasthan and Others
had become final as no appeals had been preferred therefrom. and (2) clause 3
of the 1978 Ordinance means that in drder to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,727 of 69,185. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39727 for what follows._

/'\,
. '
DR. (MRS.) SUSHMA SHARMA ETC. ETC
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
243
--...,)
March 12, 1985
B
I [E. s. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]
~
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers)
Act 1979, Section 3 Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary
Lecturers) Ordinance 1978, Clause 3 & The Rajasthan Universities Teachers
and Offfcers (Special Condition~' of Service) Act! 1974.
C
Temporary
Lecturer~· in the service of the University for long yearsJune 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointffzent, to be eligible for absorptioil
in permanent service·-Choice o] date-Whether arbitrary and discriminatory.
Constitution of India 1950 Articles 14 & 16.
June 25, 1975 fixed as the date of appointment for temporary
lecturer~
to be eligible for permanent appointn1ent-Presciption of date-Whether has«
prescribed rational nexus or arbitrary.
The Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of
Service) Act, 1974 provided for an elaborate procedure for recruitment of teachers and officers in the universities but no selection had been made on the basis
of that Act and all ap
0pointment.s were made on a temporary basis.
Section 3
of the Act provided that no stop gap or part-time arrangement can be made for
more than six months.
The temporary appointments of lecturers-by the ViceChancellor .could not be made for more than one academic year.
It further
provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw, no teacher
or officer in any University in Rajasthan should be appointed except on the
recommendation of the Selection <;:ommittee constituted under section 4.
For a long time since the inception of the University, there had been no
regular selections and appointments of lecturers in the University and the
teachers' organisations were pressing for absorption on
subst~tive posts, of
temporary -lecturers who were working·
~or_ long y~rs. The Government of
Rajasthan therefore promulgated the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978.
Clause 3 of the said Ordi- ·
nance had an English version as well as a Hindi ·version.
Hindi version in
Roman script read as follows :
"Samast asthai pradhyap)c<.o ke siimbandh me jo is roop me 25 .June,
1975 ko ya usse purve niyukat
k~ye gaye the a._ur jo Rajasthan
Vishvavidhyalay
Adhyapak
(Asthai
Pradhyapki Ka Amelan)
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[! 985] 3 S.C.R.
Adhyadesh, 1978
(1978 ka Adhyadesh s.
5)
ke prarambh ke
samaya is roop me karya kar rahe he in, unki apni, apni. ........... ,
The 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),"
·
·On 18th April, 1978 the Ordinance was replaced by an Act namely the~
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) ·Act,
1979 in which identical language was used,
.
The appellants in the appeals who were temporary lecturers and teachers,
were appointed temporarily by the Vice·Chancellor by virtue of section 20A of
the Universities of Rajasthan Act, 1946.
It was the contention of the appellants in their writ petitions that lecturers
had been temporarily appointed and continued from time to time but there were
no rules for their absorption into permanent cadre.
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 service.
'
The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that (I) the
judgment in Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. University of Rajasthan and Others
had become final as no appeals had been preferred therefrom. and (2) clause 3
of the 1978 Ordinance means that in drder to be eligible for screening for
absorption a lecturer must be in the appointment of the University any time or
for any period before 25-6-1975 and must be a temporary teacher on 12-6-1978
even though in between he or she n1ight not have been at all in service.
The Single Judge followed the interpretation of Section 3 as made in
Tiwari' s -case a'nd, was of the opinion that a clear differentiation had been made
between pre-emergency and post-emergency appointees of teachers and there
was no basis or nexus for such differentiation with the object of the Act and
such differentiation amounted to discrimination and violated Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
The Single Judge struck down the consequential part of
Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.
The Universities of Rajasthan preferred appeals against the aforesaid
judgment.
The State Government did not.
The Division Bench was of the
opinion that what was required was continuous employment from pr.ior to 25th
June, 1975 to 12th June, 1978 to be eligible for screening for absorption and
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 set aside the decision of the Single Judge.
•
~·
'
~ .
:;;>'-
•
·suSHMA SHARMA v. RAJASTI!AN
245
In the Appeals to this Court on the question : (i)
what is the true
A
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 preemergency and post-emergency appointees, which has no :nexus with the purpose
of the Act, and as such that Act is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
Dismissing the Appeals,
HELD : 1.
The object of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance, 1978 which was replaced by the
Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act 1979
was to provide for absorption of temporary lecturers of long standing-. So therefore experience and continous employment were necessary ingredients.
The
Hindi version of the Ordinance used the expression "Ke prara111!Jli. ke
samay~
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 Ordinance.
Keeping the background of the purpose of the Act in view that would be the
proper construction and if that is the proper construction which is it). consonance
with the English version of the Ordinance and the Act as well as with the object
of the Act, then the Act and the Ordinance should be construed to mean that
only those would be eligible for screening who were appointed prior to 25.6.1975
and were continuing at the time of the commencement of the Ordinance i.e.
12.6.1978 i.e. approximately about three years.
[259B-D1
2.
The English version of clause (3) presents no difficulty.
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 comn1encemcnt of the Ordinance of 1978
i.e. 12.6.1978.
[258H; 259A]
3.
The interpretation of clause (3) of the Ordinance of 1.978 in Tiwari's
case could not in the facts and circumstances be treated to be such 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 con.-
struction of the subsequent enactment, it appears that the expression had not
been correctly interpreted.
[2589-H]
The criterion fixed for screening for absorption was not. an irrational
criteria a criterion not having any nexus with the purpose of the Act.
Therefore, the criticism that a teacher who was working even for two or three months
only before 25.6.1975 and then with long interruptions was in employment of
the University at the time of the commencement of the Ordinance would be
eligible but a teacher who had worked continuously from 26.6.1975 i.e. <;lfter the
date fixed i.e. 25th June, 1975 for three years would be in-eligible and as such
that will be discrimination against long experience, cannot be accepted.
Such a
construction would be an unreasonable construction unwarranted by the language
used in the provisions cotlcerned.
[260A-Cl
B
c
D
E
F
G
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19851 3 s.c.R.
A
. S(i)
If a particular period of experience is fixed for screening or for
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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.
[260C]
(ii)
had per se.
Improper application of law in certain cases does not make the law
Useless law similarly is not always arbitrary law.
[261A]
(iii)
Wisdom or lack of wisdom in the action of the Government or
. legislature is not justiciable by court.
To find fault with a law is not to
demonstrate its invalidity. Mere errors of Governrrient are not subject to judicial
review.
What is best is not always discernible.
Metropolis Theater Company v. City of Chicago and Ernest J. Magerstadt, 57 Lawyers' Edition 730., Prag Ice·& Oil Mills & Anr. Etc. v. Union
of India, [1978] 3 SCR 293 at 333., D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India
[1983] 2 SCR 305=[1983] 2 SCR 165 referred to ..
6.
If 25th June, 1975 was taken in order to differentiate between preemergency and post-emergency appointeesrfor consideration for absorption then
there cannot be any doubt that such a differentiation would amount to an
arbitrary discrimination.
Because the fact whether one was pre-emergency
appointee and another a post-emergency was wholly irrelevant to the object of
the Act and the Ordinance i.e. absorption of temporary lecturers of long standina: working in the university.
Therefore to the question of absorption of temporary lecturefs of loni: standing imposition of emergency in the country and
appointment prior or subsequent thereto is wholly irrelevant and has no nexus.
Differentiation on a ground which is irrelevant amounts to discrimination.
[261B-D]
In Re The Special Courts Bill 1978, [1979] 2 SCR 476 Gopalan vs. State
of Madras [1950] SCR 88., State of Travencore Cochin vs. Bombay Company
Limited, [1052] 11 !2., State of West Bengal vs. Union of India, [1964] 1 SCR
371, referred to.
7. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Ordinance
and bearing in mind the preamble of the Act, the main object was to make a
specific provision for the selection of teachers and officers in the universities
which had not been done for a long time.
Temporary appointments against
vacant posts had been made by the universities and such posts had been continuing in some cases for ten years.
The preamble to the Act of 1979 is a key
to unfold the intention of the legislature to make this law.
It lays doWn that
the Act was to provide for the absorption of temporary lecturers of long standing working in the universities ofRajasth~n. [264C-D]
8.
A certain tenure of service for the purpose of absorption was the
object to be achieved and this has a rational nexus with the object.
The prescription of the date from which the period should begin and the date on which
it should end were merely incidenta1 to the purpose.
Any date perhaps could
' r
-) "--
' -
•
\..
/
-
•
.. :ol
•
SUS!IMA SHARMA v. RAJASTllAN
247
have served the purpose ·which took into consideration long tenure.
What was
intended by the use of the expression 'appointed on or before 25.6.1975' and
·must have continued until 12.6.1978 being the date of coming into force of the
Ordinance indicated that there should have been near-abotit three years experience for being eligible for absorption.
The date was a handy date.
Handy in
the sense it came quickly in the minds of some people.
At least there is no
evidence that there was any attempt to separate or penalise pre-emergency
appointee and no decision was taken by any appropriate authority and no
such evidence is there to make a distinction between pre-emergency and postemergency appointees.
Being in the employment at the time of coming into
'operation- of the Ordinance was the pre-condition i.e. 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 \Vas as good a date as any
other.
[266B·Dl
9.
It may be that 25th June, 1975 has some odour to some people.
It
may be that it revised many attitudes but this is whoJly irrelevant.
Any other
date might .have been chosen.
A particular period was taken to make a person
eligible for being screened for absorption and regularisation and if the beginning
date happens to coincide with a particular date about which some people have
some memories, the law would not become bad.
That would be taking too
~ensitive a view of human expressions.
[267B-C]
10.
For the iegularisation 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,
[269D-E]
State of Mysore & Anr. v. S.V. Narayanappa, [1967] 1 SCR 128, referred
to.
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
3286 & 3287-89/82
Civil Appeal Nos. 3285, 3284,
From the Judgment dated 17.2.1982 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.R- Special Appeal
Nos. 192/81, 191/81, 196/81,194/81, 193/81, 195/81 respectively .
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Sobhagmal Jain and S.K. Jain
for the ·
Appellants.
X_
G.L. Sanghi, R.K. Garg, Manoj Swarup, Ms. La/ita Kohli, B.D.
Shar11;1a and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
It
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.R.
SABYASACHI MuKHARll, J. These appeals by special leave arise
out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court. The appeals are by the original petitioners before the learned
single judge of the Rajasthan High Court and who having succeeded
before the learned single judge became respondents in the appeals
filed by the University before the Division Bench. The appellants in
these appeals and other connected appeals were temporary lecturers
and teachers on various subjects. They were appointed temporary
lecturers by the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of section 20A of the
University of Rajasthan Act, 1946.
Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers
(Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as
1974 University Act provides for regular selection by Selection
Committees.
Section 3 of the 1974 Act provides that no stop gap
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 subsection (I) 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 o.ther
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 a long 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 fpr absorption
on substantive posts of temporary lecturers who were working for
long years. It is not necessary to deal in detail on -this position.
One Shri Y.K. Tiwari filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High
Court. The case was disposed of by a learned single judge of the
Rajasthan High Court on 30th August, L97Rbeing Civil Writ
Petition No. 446 of 1978-Yogendra Kumar Tiwari v. University of
Rajasthan aod Others.
The petitioner in that case was appointed as
a lecturer in Law on temporary basis after being selected by the Selection Committee by an earlier order dated 10th of January, 1975. The
said petitioner had worked upto 19th June, 1975 but he was allowed
his salary upto 29th May, 1975 as his term was not extended thereafter. He was not allowed any salary for vacation also as he had
'·
•
·"
SUSllMA SHARMA "· RAJASTHAN (S. Mukharji, J.)
249
not completed six months' service on the last day of the session. The
petitioner was reappointed as a lecturer on a temporary basis by an
order dated 13th September, 1975.
As mentioned hereinbefore, ..
there was long standmg grievance of the temporary lecturers and.
therefore the Government of Rajasthan promulgated The Rajastl,an
Universities - Teachers
(Absorption of
Temporary
Lecturers)
Ordinance, 1978 which is hereinatter referred to as the Ordinance of
1978. It was the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for
screening. It was further contended that the previous Vice·Chancellor
before handing over charge of his office had passed an order dated
2nd July, 1977 condoning the break in service of about 25 temporary
lecturers in University belonging to the various departments including the faculty of law. Para or clause 3 of the said Ordinance of
1978 had an English version as well as Hindi version.
In view of the
fact that certain controversy iis there, it is necessary to set out toth
these versions.
Hindi version written in Roman script reads as·
follows:
"Samast asthai pradhyapko ke sambandh me jo is roop me
25 June, 1975 ko ya usse purve niyukat kiya gaye the aur jo
Rajasthan Vishvavidhyalay Adhyapak (Astbai Pradhyapko
Ka Amelan) Adhyadesh, 1978 (1978 ka Adhyadesh S'S) ke
prarambh ke samaya is roop me karye kar raha hein, unki
apni apni asthai niyukatiyo ki tarikho ko lagoo susangat · •
vidhi ke adhin sambandhit vishvavidhyalaya dwara vihit
nuntam ahartaon ko sammilit karte hue patrta ki sharto ki
unke dwara purti ke adhyadhin aur sambandhit vibhag me
pradhyapko ki adhishthai riktiyon ki uplabhyata ki bhi
adhyadhin rehte hue, dhara 4 ke anhin gathit anuveekshan
samiti ki sifarish per unke amelan aur adhishthai niyukti
per sambandhit vishvidhyalay dwara vichar kiya jayega."
·
(underlined by us) . ·
English version of the Ordinance reads as follows :-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"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
q'eachers (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
II
A
c
•
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[! 985] 3 S.C.R.
Committee constituted under section 4 subject to their fulfiling the conditions of eligibility including minimum
qualifications prescribed by the University concerned under
the relevant law as applicable on the respective dates of
their trmporary appointments and subject also to the availability 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 1978 Ordinance means that in order to be eligible for screening
for absorption a lecturer must be in the appointment of the University any time or for any period before 25.6.1975 and then again she
or he must be a temporary teacher on 12.6.1978 even though in
between he or she might not have been at all in service .
fhe learned judge found that if Hindi version of clause 3 be
given effect to then, to he eligible onem ust have been appointed
before 25th June, 1975 and must have been in the employment as such
at the commencement of the Ordinance. In the English version of
this Ordinance, the words used are "and are continuing." ·This,
according to the learned judge, was not the correct translation of the
Hindi version and according to his reading, instead of the words
used as "and are continuing as such", words such as "and are continuously in service or have been continuously in service" should
have been used if continuous employment from prior .to 25th June,
1975 to the 12th of June, 1978 was required. The learned judge
came to the conclusion that in the Hindi version of the Ordinance,
only two conditions were required to be fulfiled for absorption i.e.
appointment before 25th June, 1975 and continuing as such at the
time of the commencement of this Ordinance i.e. 12th June, 1978.
Taking that in view, the learned judge made the rule absolute and
directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to his substantive
post as the screening had already been done. This decision was not
appealed from and it has been contended on behalf of the appellants
before us that 106 lecturers who were working temporarily have all
beco.me permanent. On 18th of April, 1978 the Ordinance was replaced by an Act namely The Rajasthan Universities Teachers
(Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 in which indentical
.,i....
(
•
,.
•
SUSllMA SHARMA v, RAJASTHAN (S. Muk'f,~ rji, J.)
251
language was used. It was contended that interpretation given in
Tiwari's case was accepted by the legislature as correct. We shall
deal with this contention la'ter. But the fact that there was no appeal
preferred by the State from judgment in Tiwari's case might be that
the judgment was delivered by the learned single judge on 30th
August, 1978 and the Ordinance expired on 3l•t August, 1978. On
18th of April, 1979 however the Ordinance was replaced by 1979
Act.
So far as the present
appeals before us are concerned, the
following questions fall for our consideration :
(I) 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· screen'ing
under section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption
of lemporary Lecturer•) Act, 1979 makes the Act invalid on the
ground 1 of differentiation between pre-emergency
and
·postemergency 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 ithe expression used in section 3
of 1h·e 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
~ear to year but
theie 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 Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special
Conditions of Service)_ Act, 1974-hereinafter referred to. as the 1974
Act had provided elaborate procedure for recruitment of teachers
and officers in the universities. But no selections had been made on
the basis of that Act and all appointments were made on temporary
basis. In 1978 as noted before the Ordinance of 1978 was promulgated with the object to provide for the absorption of temporary
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.R
lecturers of long standing working in the universities of Rajasthan.
Aecording to the University only those who had been appointed
before 25th June, 1975 and continued to be in service on the date
of the coming into operation of the Ordinance i.e. 12th June, 1978
were eligible.
As the practice of the University, it was alleged, was
to break the service, one Tiwari moved the High Court and the
decision of the High Court and the basis of the said decision have
been set out hereinbefore.
The learned single judge in this case on examination of the
materials came to the conclusion that the original petitioners, the
appellants herein had succeeded in establishing the fact that the
date of 25th June, 1975 was arbitrarily fixed which had no nexus
with the object or the purpose of the said Act. Therefore he made
the rules absolute. The learned single judge came to the conclusion
that under the said Ordinance and under the said Act, the date of
25th June, 1975 offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The learned single judge had dealt in his judgment with the
petition of Dr. Rukmani. He has set out the facts in detail. It
is not necessary to set these out in detail but briefly these are : She
passed her M.A. in Hindi in 1969, she did her Ph.D. in Hindi
in 1973 from
the University of Rajasthan. On 28th June, 1976
she was appointed tutor in Hindi on a temporary basis for a period
of three months in the University of Rajasthan. She was permit··
ted to work as tutor on account of various extensions and ultimataly
she became lecturer.
A Selection Committee of the University
selected her for lecturer. She was appointed as such with effect from
9th October. 1977. Her services were terminated with effect
from J 5th August, 1979 by an order of the Vice·Cbancellor.
The screening done as per order of the High Court in Tiwari's
case resulted in absorption of about l 06 lecturers who were working .
temporarily. Orders to this 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,
J 975, they were treated as ineligible for being screened under the
provisions of the OrJinance 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
l
y
• I ·
\
'
•
SUSHMA SHARMA v. RAJASTHAN (S. Mukharji, J.)
253
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,
197~, the time was
thereafter extended till 31st
August, 1979.
Dr. Rukmaoi and others applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the University. The Selection Committee held the
interviews on 16th and 17th July, 1979. She was considered by the
Selection Committee. The Selection Committee did not select the
said petitioner and she was accordingly rejected by the Selection
Committee. Dr. Rukmani had challenged the Ordinance of 1978 arid
the Act of 1979 on the one hand and also the Selection Co=ittee's decision by which sbe was assessed on the other and the
respondents were selected under the Act, of 1974.
The point that was canvassed mainly on behalf of the petitioners
before the learned single judge related to the validity of the Ordinance of 1978 and the Act of 19H, sine' both the Ordinance as well
as the Act had got common feature of making a teacher eligible for
consideration by the Screening Committee, only if he or she was
in the service of the University on or before 25th June. 1975 and
further that he or she was also in the service ot the University on
12th June, 1978, the date when the Ordinance became effective by
publication in the Gazette.
Section 3 of the Act of 1979 reads as follows :-
'·3. Substantive appointmen·t of temporary lecturers.-
All temporary lecturers as were appointed as such on or
before the 25th day of June, 1975 and were continuing as
such at the commencement of the Rajasthan Universities
Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Ordinance,
1978(0rdinance 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 or section 5, as case may
be· subject to their fulfilling the condition of eligibility
including minimum qualificrrtions prescribed by the University concerned under the relevant law as applicable on the
A
B
c
u
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
254
SVPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 s.c.R.
respective dates of their temporary appointments and
subject also to the availability of substantive vacancies of
lecturers in the department concerned."
Sections 5 and 6 were as follows:-
"5.
Re-Screening.-(!) Notwithstanding any-thing contained in section 7 or any other provision of the Rajasthan
Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers)
Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1978), the services
of temporary lecturer, who was considered for substantive
· appointment by a Screening Committee but was not found
suitable, shall be deemed not have terminated and he shall
continue to be a temporary lecturer till he is again considered for substantive 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 Univerisities 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 thatthe 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 was of the 'iew that the Act had
application to all the temporary lecturers who were working in the
various universities. in Rajasthan on the relevant dates and unless
•
SUSHMA SHARMA v. RAJASTHAN (S. Mukharji, J.)
255
they were selected by the screening com.mittee under the said Act,
A
their services were to be terminated by 31st August, 1978. The
object of the Act, according to the learned.judge, was to regularise
the services of those who were found suitable after screening and to
fulfil the conditions of section 3 and then terminate the services of
all other temporary teachers on expiry of 31st August, 1978'.
B
The main controversy raised
befor~ the learned single judge of
the High Court related. to the fixation of the two dates namely 15th
June, 197 5 and secondly the date of the commencement of the
~ Ordinance namely 12th June. 1978. But what was pressed was about
I
the validity of the date fixed as 25.th June, 1975 as thedate on or
C
J<..
before which the teacher should have been functioning as a teacher
in a particular University. Was this date arbitrary?
It is stated by the learned judge ihat the court enquired from
the Advocate-General who appeared on behalf of the State and from
the learned counsel of the ·Rajasthan University as to what bad
prompted the fixing of the date as 25th June, 1975.
.
'
It may be mentioned as it is .well-known that 25th June, J 975
was the date on which last emergen~y was introduced in the country.
Af
The learned Advocate-General had submitted before the learned
single judge . that it was at the ins.tance of the Rajasthan University
and the Vice-Chancellor that the date was so selected. The standing
counsel, the learned judge recorded, took the stand that so far as the
University was concerned, it had never wggested the above date and ·
he had got no reason to justify the fixing of that date.
The learned
. ~_judge summone~ the secretariat file. It was revealed that the date
. .r 1 was fixed precisely on account of the suggestion of the Vice-
•
Chancellor of the Rajasthan University. The learned judge extracted
from a portion of a letter dated 30th January, 1978 from the file of
the University which reads as follows :-
"It is proposed that all the temporary lecturers appointed
on or before 25.6. 1975 be screened by a Screening Committee appointed by the University concerned and on the
recommendation of screening committee they be absorbed
subject of course to the availability of the vacancies in the
department and the candidate fulfilling the prescribed
qualifications. 25th day of June, 1975 has been suggested
D
F•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.R.
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
Jetter 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 learnecl 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 !st 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 view
ot the history of appointment of temporary lecturers, that the intention was to regularise the appointments taking into consideration
certein tenure of experience or office into consideration, It was
Initially suggeeted that 1973 should be taken as the date to begin
with i.e. who should be on the roll of lecturers on that date in 1973
but due to representations on behalf of the associations of teachers
so as to include subsequent appointees, it was changed. Why this
particular date was chosen, there is no specific answer but there is
a letter from the Vice-Chancellor which indicated that such date
'should be taken, because 25th June, 1975 was the date of emergency,
that date should be taken as he said "we should take care of all
appointments before the national emergency". In order to appreciate
the problem of regularisation, the learned single judge noted that
the Univenity of Rajasthan had been adopting a practice of appointing temporary· lecturers for a fixed period and after a gap to
reappoint.
It had created a controversy and several teachers were
found ineligible on account of this break in service and this had
led to the earlier writ petition which we have mentioned hereinbefore.
The earlier writ petition (Tiwari's) had interpreted clause (3)
now section 3 of the Act to mean that continuity of service between
25.6.1975 to 12.6.1978 was not necessary and aU that was required
was that one must be in service on or before 25.6.1975 and then
,
f
•
SUSHMA SHARMA v, RAJASTHAN (S. Mukharji, J.)
257
again on 12.6.1978. This is a point on which we wc:mld have to
A
express our opinion as to whether the learned single judge was correct
in his interpretation.
On the basis of the interpretation of section 3 of the Act as
made by Tiwari's case (supra) by which the learned single judge felt
himself bound and with which the learned single judge agreed, he
accordingly made the rule absolute. The learned single judge was
of the opinion that a clear differentiation had been made between
pre-emergency and post-emergency appointees of teachers and there
was no basis or nexus for such differentiation with the object of the
Act and
such differentiation amounted to discrimination and
violated Articles !4 and 16 of the Constitution. The ]earned single
judge also struck down the consequential part of section 6 and 7 of
the Act as mentioned hereinbefore.
The universities of Rajasthan preferred appeals against the
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 employ- ·
ment 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 postemergency 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 J 979
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.
As mentioned herein before,, the learned single judge of the
Rajasthan High Court in these appeals had relied heavily on the
interpretation made in Y. K. Tiwari's case (supra) of clause (3) of
1 >78 Ordinance, B_efore us also in these appeals this was reiterated.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 3 S.C.R.
It was contended that that was the only possible construction of clause
(3) of 1978 Ordinance and necessarily of section 3 oft979 Act.
We
shall presently deal with this con ten ti on. It was further contended
that this clause (3) of 1978 Ordinance having received judicial
interpretation and when the legislature enacted the 1979 Act, the
legislature bad before it this interpretation and when a particular
form of legislative enactment had received authoritative interpretation whether by judicial decision or by a long course of practice is
again adopted in framing of a later statute, it is sound rule of
construction. to bold that the words so adopted were intended by
the legislature to bear the meaning which had been so put upon
them. (See Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition p. 139).
This argument, however, cannot in this case be accepted.
As
we have noted before, the fact that there was no appeal perferred
from the learned single judge's decision in Y.K.