University workers engaged through placement agencies sought regularization after 15–30 years of service. The court upheld their entitlement to parity with similarly situated regularized employees and dismissed the university’s appeals, leaving directions for regularization with consequential benefits intact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, Resident Of Village Nosar, Tehsil Osian, Dist. Jodhpur, Presently Working As Chowkidar In the Engineering Hostel No. 8, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1759/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Shera Tak (Miss) D/o Shri Om Prakash Tak, Aged About 45 Years, By Case Sen, 7/g-32, Kuri Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Harish Kumar Parihar S/o Shri Narsa Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By Category Sc, R/o C-182, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni, First Phase, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
(2 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Sampat Raj S/o Shri Mehra Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By Category Obc, R/o House No. 68, Rajeev Nagar, Basni 1St Phase, Kudi Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1857/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Obc, 61 Nehru Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1864/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Deva Ram S/o Shri Mehra Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Category Obc, R/o House No. 68,l Rajeev Nagar, Basni First Phase, Kudi Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1865/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Komal Singh Charan S/o Shri Hari Singh Charan, Aged About 35 Years, By Category Obc, A-419, Saraswati Nagar, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1870/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Indra Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste
(3 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Rawna Rajput, R/o 139, Rawala Kot, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Sunil Verma S/o Shri Prem Sukh Verma, Aged About 31 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Near Ganesh Chowk, Gandhiyon Ki Gali, City Police, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, By Category General, R/o C-171, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1891/2018
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
----Appellant
Versus
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
----Appellant
Versus
(4 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Mal Singh Bhati, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Rawana Rajput, House No. 63-F, Near New James School, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 127/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Arjun Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Poona Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By Category Obc, R/o C/o Hari Ram Dudi, Plot No. 11, Kbh Road, Karni Nagar, Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 133/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Virendra Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, By Category General, R/o Vidhya Bhawan, Hakam Bagh, Opp. Sardar School, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 135/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Baldev Ram S/o Shri Bagga Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste
(5 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Category Obc, R/o Village Nandra Kalla, Singdo Ki Dhani, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 138/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Manish Raney S/o Shri Nand Lal Raney, Aged About 32 Years, By Category General, R/o Meera Niwas, First C Road, Sardarpura, Opp. Azad Hind College Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 163/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Shrawan Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Baldev Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Meghwal (Sc), R/o Meghwalon Ka Bas, Village And Post Khangata, Tehsil Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 169/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Sharma S/o Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, Presently Working As Class Iv Employee/assistant Employee In The Office Of Mbm Engineering College And Board Of Sports, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
(6 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Jai Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Paharganj IInd Colony, Lalsagar, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 171/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar Tak S/o Shri Manohar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Sen, R/o D-22, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 221/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Prem Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Rawana Rajput, R/o- Village Gadav, Post- Karwar, Tehsil And Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 222/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Madan Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Rawana Rajput, R/o Village Gadav, Post Karwar, Tehsil And Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 241/2019
(7 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Kasi Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Naya Talab, Moti Kund, Inside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 243/2019
1.Jai Narain Vyas University,jodhpur, Through Its Registrar. 2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 244/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Jai Ram S/o Shri Bhoora Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Naya Bera, Village And Post Khangata, Teh. Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 245/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Narendra Kumar Bhatt S/o Shri S.p. Bhatt, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Bhatto Ka Vass, Bharampuri, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 247/2019
----Appellants
(8 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Narayan Ram S/o Shri Magna Ram, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Sen, 149, Nainon Ka Bas, Vpo Khabra Khurd, Tehsil Osian, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 251/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Matabux, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Opposite Baba Ramdeo Temple, Sanotshpura, Masuriya, Jodhpur. ----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Kavita Panwar Mrs. D/o Late Shri Bihari Singh Panwar, Aged About 39 Years, Category Obc, R/o Fort Road, Bagar Beri, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 304/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Ram Prakash S/o Shri Seeta Ram Faroda, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Hanumanpura, Village And Post Khangata, Tehsil Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
----Appellants
(9 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Ajeet Singh, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Category General, R/o- Makan No. 40, East Patel Nagar, Circuit House Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 306/2019
Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
Murlidhar S/o Shri Rambux, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 4/161, K.k. Colony, Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 307/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Gaur S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Gaur, R/o Meharon Ka Chowk, Naya Bas, Pipali Ki Gali, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 310/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Himmat Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, By Category Obc, R/o- D-94, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
----Appellants
(10 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Vimla (Mrs.) D/o Shri Aatma Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 262, Nehru Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 321/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Manish Pal Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, By Category Obc, R/o 66-A, Opposite Dhandi School, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 322/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh S/o Shri Aatma Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 262, Nehru Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 323/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Anand Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Babu Lal Gehlot, Age about 45 years, By Category Obc, R/o Soorsagar Thane Ke Pass, Chandpole Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 324/2019
----Appellants
(11 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Narpat Kumar S/o Late Shri Pema Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Jawahar Colony, Sardar Club, Ratanada, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 325/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Babu Lal S/o Shri Chunni Lal, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Saragara, R/o. 41/4, Marusthali Awas Colony, Engg. Hostel, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 328/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sanjani W/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, By Category Obc, R/o- D-94, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 330/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 44 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Sunaro Ki Bagechi, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 331/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sajjan Singh S/o Shri Lakh Singh, Aged About 28 Years, By
(12 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Category General, R/o Village Post Bastwa, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Nirmala D/o Late Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 239, Nehru Colony, Panch Batti Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Vikram Gharu S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 257, Nehru Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 342/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Vikas Parmar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Parmar, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Sargara, Resident Of Jagjeevan Ram Colony, Khetanadi, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
(13 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Arjun Ram S/o Shri Ghevar Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o House No. 118, Jagdamba Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 350/2019
Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
----Appellant
Versus
Deena Ram S/o Shri Mandroop Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Khangta, Tehsil Pipad City, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 354/2019
----Appellant
Versus
Tej Raj S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal, Resident Of Shanti Nagar, Masuriya Colony, Jodhpur- Presently Working As Lab Assistant In The Office Of Computer Science And Engineering Department, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Gopa Ram Solanki, Aged About 31 Years, By Category Obc, R/o 56, Balaji Nagar, Salawas Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(14 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Versus
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Desha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- At Present L-213, B Railway Medical Colony, Old Loko, Dist. Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 361/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Madan Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, By Category Obc, R/o. 130, Ghanchi Colony, New Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 362/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Dilip Solanki S/o Late Shri Hari Singh Solanki, Aged About 26 Years, By Category Obc R/o Gali No. 5, Ram Chowk, Jaloriyon Ka Bas, Inside Nagori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 363/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Praveen S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 30 Years, By Category Sc, R/o., Ch-24, High Court Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
(15 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Janta Colony, House No. 114, 1St Phase, Rameshwar Nagar, Jodhpur. Presently Working As Peon/chowkidar In The Health Care Centre, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 382/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumari D/o Shri Jagdish Singh Deora, Aged About 47 Years, By Category General, R/o Pachetia Hilla, Navchowkia, Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 387/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Pramod Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Rawana Rajput, R/o 137, Ravala Kot, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 395/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Ashok Sen S/o Shri Mangi Lal Sen, Aged About 27 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Plot No. 446, Vaishnav Colony, Gali No. 11, Balaji Mandir Road, Chandna Bhakar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
(16 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 404/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar Ojha S/o Late Sh. Hari Lal Ji Ojha, By Caste Ojha, Resident Of Chand Baori, Navchokiya, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 411/2019
Versus
Dhan Raj S/o Shri Chandu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 252, Nehru Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 419/2019
The Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
----Appellant
Versus
Ram Prasad S/o Shri Babu Lalji Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Mahamandir, Junibagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 442/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Jai Kanwar W/o Shri Dharmendra Singh Panwar, Aged About 36 Years, By Castegory Obc, R/o Plot No. 13, Gaj Kripa, Old Police Line, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 443/2019
(17 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Vishnu Kumar S/o Shri Bankelal Prajapat, Aged About 31 Years, By Category Obc, R/o. Krashi Mandi Ke Piche, Maderna Colony, Pipli Chowk, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 449/2019
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur
----Appellant
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 452/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Hanif S/o Shri Abdul Hamid, Age about 43 years R/o Maderna Colony, Kayamkhanii Mohalla, Near Masjid, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 454/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sobhagmal Morya S/o Shri Suresh Chand, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Category Sc, R/o 1101/21, Morya Bhawan, Peer Road, Diggi Bazar, Dist. Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 455/2019
(18 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Yogeshwar S/o Shri Om Prakash Chouhan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Hathi Ram Ka Odha, Ranawat Mandir Ke Samene, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 496/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Vandana Chouhan S/o Shri Pukhraj Chouhan, Aged About 37 Years, By Category Sc, R/o- House No. 72, Jawahar Colony, Near Sardar Club, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 497/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sapna Koli D/o Shri Naval Kishore, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Koli, R/o 355, Railway Quarters, Rpf Backside, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 498/2019
----Appellants
Versus
(19 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Years, By Caste Matwa, Presently Working As Chowkidar At Derashree Hospital, New Campus, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 499/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Mahesh Ram S/o Shri Amra Ram, Aged About 28 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Haryana Konri, Agolai, Tehsil Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 500/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Verma S/o Shri Om Prakash Verma, Aged About 36
(20 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Years, By Category Obc, R/o Backside Of Ramdev Mandir, Suthala, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 523/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Nirmal Tak S/o Shri Narendra Singh Tak, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Inside Nagori Gate, Vijay Chowk, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 549/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Singh Mundel S/o Shri Hari Ram Mundel, Aged About 31 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Village Post Khangta, Tehsil Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Parbat S/o Shri Babulal Siyota, Aged About 28 Years, House No. 988, Kheme Ka Kua, Near K.r. Public School, Pal Road, JodhpurPresently Working As Peon In The Office Of Electronic And Computer Engineering Department, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(21 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Bharat Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Prahlad Singh Chouhan, Aged About 25 Years, House No. 64, Sector-F, Rameshwar Nagar, Near James School, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur- Presently Working As Peon/class-II Employee In The Office Of Electronic And Communications Engineering Department, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramratan Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 8Th, Residency Road, House No. 11-A, Karmchari Colony, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Kewal Chand S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Sanjay Colony, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 572/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Girdhari Singh, Aged About 33
(22 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Years, Plot No. 69, Janta Colony, Rameshwar Nagar, JodhpurPresently Working As Peon In The Office Of Electronic And Communications Engineering Department, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 577/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Manoj Singh S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 29 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Village And Post Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 605/2019
The Jai Narain Vyas University,jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
----Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Aslam S/o Atta Mohammed, Aged About 40 Years, R/ o Karnal Sahab Ki Haveli, Udai Mandir Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 761/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Alan Lawerence S/o Shri Zoey F. Franks, Aged About 42 Years, By Category General, R/o House No. 18, Nayapura, Lal Sagar Mandore, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 762/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Bora S/o Shri Ram Krishna Bora, Aged About 54 Years,
(23 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
By Category General, R/o Near Boharon Ki Pole, Khanda Phalsa, Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 763/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Hitendra Parihar S/o Shri Thanchand Parihar, Aged About 29 Years, By Category Sc, R/o 73, Jawahar Colony, Opp. Polo Ground, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Harikishan Bohra S/o Shri Vishwambhar Lal Bohra, Aged About 48 Years, By Category General, R/o 94, Gayatri Nagar, Behind Latiyal Vatika, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 765/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal S/o Shri Chandu Lal, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o 262, Nehru Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 766/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Prakash Prajapat S/o Shri Sohan Lal Prajapat, Aged About 39 Years, By Category Obc, R/o Manak Chowk, Naya Bas, Ramdev Ji
(24 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Ki Gali, Near Chitra Cinema, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 767/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Prem Singh S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Daiya, Aged About 46 Years, By Category Obc, R/o- Plot No. 46, Bhagwan Nagar, Near Tagore School, Bjs, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 854/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Anand Singh S/o Shri Banshi Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Jhalamand Chouraya, House No. 60, Vayu Vihar Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 856/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal S/o Gulab Ram, Aged About 41 Years, By Category Sc, R/o Plot No.113, Jawahar Colony, Near Sardar Club, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Banshi Lal Chouhan, Aged About 44 Years,
(25 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Resident Of Plot No. 9-B, Panchwati Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 889/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Chandar Singh S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Resident Of C-469, Saraswati Nagar, Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur. Presently Working As Class Iv Employee/lab Assistant In The Office Of Faculty Of Computer Science And Engineering Department, Mbm Engineering College, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 890/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Man Prakash S/o Shri Prem Prakash, Resident Of Servant Quarter No. 4, In Front Of Green Gate, Mbm Engineering College, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. Presently Working As Chowkidar In The Office Of Production And Industrial Engineering, Faculty Of Engineering And Architecture, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 891/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Jhuth Singh, Age about 36 years, R/o C/o Mangilal Ji, H. No. 1, Near New Marwar Hotel, High Court Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 892/2019
(26 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Ehesan S/o Late Nishar Ahmed, Resident Of Farashon Ka Mohalla, Moti Chowk, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 934/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Rawana Rajput, R/o 309, Hanuman Dhari, Guda Road, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 941/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Shanti Lal S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Sargara, Resident Of - Jagjeevan Ram Colony, Khetanadi, Mandore Road, Jodhpur (Jodhpur)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 955/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Rajni W/o Shri Yashpal Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Plot No. Hudco Quarter, Sector E-170, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
(27 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 956/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Sohan Lal S/o Shri Narayan Das, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 365, Laxmi Nagar, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 957/2019
----Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Bugasara S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Age about 30 years By Caste Jat, R/o Village Khorwa, Post Bhuwanda, Tehsil Kheevsar, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 333/2020
The Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
----Appellant
Versus
Sajjan Singh S/o Kan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Bhatti Ki Bawdi, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Jodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Kailash Choudhary Dr. AA Bhansali Dr. Nikhil Dungawat Mr. Nihar Jain Mr. SKM Vyas
(28 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Govind Suthar Mr. Harish Purohit Mr. BS Sandhu Mr. R.S. Choudhary Mr. Firoz Khan Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgement Reserved on :- 10.08.2021 Judgment Pronounced on :- 13th.08.2021 (Per : Hon’ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur,J.)
The defects pointed out by the Registry in some of the appeals are over-ruled.
In some of the appeals, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed for condonation of delay.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeals is condoned.
The present batch of appeals led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2016 Sunil Kumar Ojha vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur arise out of the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and other connected matters came to be decided on different dates by the learned Single Judge i.e. on 30.08.2018, 17.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 14.08.2018, 14.02.2019 & 14.11.2018. Since the common question of law and fact is involved in all these matters, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Brief facts which are required to be noted for deciding the controversy are that respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse,
(29 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator in the appellant- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.N.V University’) on different dates through the placement agency. Since, the respondents-petitioners had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested for regularizing their services in the University but their services were not regularised.
In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 & 26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the services of six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion to the petitioners in the University on contractual/daily wage basis. The said Sub-Committee recommended for regularization of their services. The said recommendation was confirmed in a Meeting of the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, the respondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University on 28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees were confirmed and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the same was not agreed to by the University.
It is noted that the University Administration vide its Notification dated 27.10.2017 sought information in a prescribed proforma from different departments regarding persons rendering the services on contract basis, probably with a view to regularise their services. However, when the grievances of the respondentspetitioners were not redressed, separate writ petitions were filed before this Court and the same were allowed by various Single
(30 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Benches of this Court directing the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents-petitioners with all consequential benefits.
To complete the factual matrix, it is also relevant to mention that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employees were allowed by the learned Single Benches and the appeals preferred by the University against the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In some of the cases, even the Special Leave Petitions filed by the University before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also dismissed. The details of the same are reproduced below in tabular form:-
1. JITENDRA KUMAR (PEON/CHOWKIDAR)
| S.No | Type of Case |
Case No. | Petitioner / Appellant Vs Respondent |
Date of Decision |
Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | SBCWP | 8660/2011 | Jitendra Kumar Vs JNVU |
13.12.2013 | Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner |
| 2. | DBSAW | 354/2014 | JNVU Vs Jitendra Kumar |
18.07.2014 | Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed |
| 3. | SLP | 30831/2014 | JNVU Vs Jitendra Kumar |
24.11.2014 | SLP filed by Respondent University dismissed |
| 4. | WCP | 84/2014 | Jitendra Kumar Vs Mukesh Choudhary & Anr. |
26.10.2016 21.11.2016 |
Contempt allowed appointment as well as arrear of payments of due given to the employee on 24.10.2016. |
2. DR. VIKRANT SHARMA (LDC)
| S.No | Type of Case |
Case No. | Petitioner/ Appellant |
Vs | Respondent | Date of Decision |
Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | SBCWP | 375/2015 | Dr. Vikrant Sharma |
Vs | JNVU | 03.08.2016 | Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner |
| 2. | DBSAW | 7/2017 | JNVU | Vs | Dr. Vikrant Sharma |
21.02.2017 | Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed |
| 3. | SLP | 1534/2018 | JNVU | Vs | Dr. Vikrant Sharma |
09.04.2018 | SLP filed by Respondent University before Supreme Court dismissed |
| 4. | WCP | 539/2017 | Dr. Vikrant Sharma |
Vs | Bhanwar Singh Sandu |
19.07.2018 09.04.2021 |
Pending Appoint order dated 18.08.2018 |
3. DEEPAK DAVE (PEON)
| S.N | Type of | Case No. | Petitioner/ | Vs | Respondent | Date of | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| o | Case | Appellant | Decision |
(31 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
| 1. | SBCWP | 13750/2015 | Deepak Dave | Vs | JNVU | 13.12.2017 | Allowed in terms of Jitendra Kumar & appointment was given on 12.01.2018. No Appeal was filed by Respondent University Appointment order dated 12.01.2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2. | WCP | 601/2018 | Deepak Dave | Vs | Pk Sharma & Anr. | 01.05.2018 | Pending |
4. KHAMA RAM VISHNOI (ASSISTANT COORDINATOR)
5. PREM CHAND MEHTA (ASSISTANT CUM ACCOUNTANT)
6. NARENDRA SURANA (STENO CUM TYPIST)
| S.No | Type of Case |
Case No. | Petitioner/ Appellant |
Vs | Respondent | Date of Decision |
Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | SBCWP | 1316/2015 1317/2015 832/2015 |
Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana |
Vs | JNVU | 08.10.2018 | Allowed in favour of employee/petitione r |
| 2. | DBSAW | 574/2019 574/2019 574/2019 |
JNVU | Vs | Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana |
15.07.2019 07.08.2019 07.08.2019 |
Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed |
| 3. | SLP | 11495/2020 8510/2020 11494/2020 |
JNVU | Vs | Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana |
14.10.2020 18.08.2020 14.10.2020 |
SLP filed by Respondent University before Supreme Court dismissed |
| 4. | WCP | 406/2019 393/2019 468/2019 |
Khama Ram Vishnoi Prem Chand Mehta Narendra Surana |
Vs | Ayub Khan | 19.02.2021 | Pending |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are unjust, improper and incorrect as the respondents-petitioners were given appointment through the placement agency and as such, there was no master-servant relationship between the appellant-University and the respondents-petitioners. Thus, there was no question for the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents-
(32 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
petitioners, more so, when the placement agency was not arrayed as party respondent. He further contended that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the University and the State which provides that the State is the final authority for creation of posts and filling up the vacancies and since the State was not arrayed as party respondent in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties also.
Learned counsel for the appellant-University argued that the respondents-petitioners were employed through placement agency, therefore, they cannot be termed as the employees of the appellant-University and there was no question of regularizing their services on the posts as mentioned above. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Dayalal reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 .
The learned counsel implored the Court that the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 03.08.2016 is having no similarity with the case of the present respondents-petitioners as Dr. Vikrant Sharma – petitioner therein was appointed by the University and not through the contractor/placement agency and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error while considering the case of respondentspetitioners on the ground of parity with the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondentspetitioners were not appointed on the sanctioned strength of posts and since they were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength of the regular employees, their case cannot be considered for regularization. He argued that while deciding the case of Deepak
(33 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Dave (supra) , the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the law laid down in the case of Ramavtar Sharma and Ors. vs. RSRTC and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) WLC (Raj) 112 and instead relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 13.12.2013.
Shri P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently argued that in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that observations made in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi cannot be made applicable in every case and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error while giving a direction of regularization to the appellant-University in the present case.
The applications preferred by the State of Rajasthan for impleading as party-respondent were allowed. Shri Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-University and submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error while passing the order of regularization in favour of the respondents-petitioners.
Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents-petitioners supported the judgment delivered by the learned Single Bench in their favour on the ground that respondents-petitioners are serving the appellant-University for almost 15-30 years on different posts. They submitted that the respondents-petitioners are rendering their services for such a long period shows that there is a perennial nature of work and the University is functioning in full vigour and strength, therefore, not regularizing the services of the respondents-petitioners, is nothing but jeopardizing their future and livelihood as the sword of
(34 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
disengagement and termination will always hang on their head. They further submitted that not regularizing the services of the respondents-petitioners is not only unfair and unreasonable but, the same can be termed as unfair labour practice also.
The learned counsels have further submitted that the continuance of the respondents-petitioners in service for almost 15-30 years shows that University is not only in need of their services, but their services have also been found to be satisfactory. They submitted that the appellant-University regularized the services of similarly placed employees way back in the year 1999 and thereafter, different judgments have been passed in the case of the similarly situated employees. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that on the same lines, relief may be extended to the respondents-petitioners and the appeals may be dismissed as has been done in the cases of Jitendra Kumar, Vikrant Sharma, Khema Ram Bishnoi, Premchand Mehta and Narendra Surana.
It is further submitted that challenge to the Division Bench judgments passed by this Court have been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petitions filed by the appellant-University have been dismissed. They submitted that the University took up the matter by collecting the information of the respondents-petitioners for regularization, but the same has not been culminated into the orders passed for regularization in their cases. Learned counsel have relied upon the judgments passed by this Court for extending the similar benefits in their cases. They also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 358, Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University,
(35 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Anr. AIR 2015 SC 347, ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. AIR 2015 SCW 2866, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 1229, Sheo Narian Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2018 SC 233.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings, written submissions as well as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties.
The admitted facts in the present case are that appellant – (Jodhpur University, erstwhile) now Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur was established in the year 1962 and even today thousands of students are enrolled and undergoing studies in different disciplines. The respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts as mentioned above on different dates and they are still serving the appellant-University till date. Most of the respondents-petitioners have rendered almost 15-30 years of service. It is also worth noticing that services of some of the similarly situated employees were regularized by the University in the year 1999. Since the University itself had taken up the cases for regularization of some of the employees on its own, therefore, there is no reason for the appellant-University in not extending the same benefit in the case of respondents-petitioners. We also note that the respondents-petitioners are serving the appellantUniversity for a considerable period of time (almost 15-30 years) and the sword of uncertainty cannot be allowed to hang on their head.
The learned counsel for the appellant-University failed to distinguish the case of the present respondents-petitioners from
(36 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
the cases of the persons in whose favour, the judgments have been rendered by this Court and against the said judgments, Special Leave Petitions have also been rejected by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is also noticed that the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-University were already taken note of by this Court in the earlier judgments and, therefore, there is no reason for us to take a different view in the present batch of appeals. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the respondents-petitioners are entitled to the same relief as extended in favour of Jitendra Kumar and Ors.
Learned counsel for the appellant-University submitted that there is no direct relationship between the respondents-petitioners and the University. It is noticed that the respondents-petitioners are directly serving under the University administration and they are directly under the command and control of the appellantUniversity. The continuance of respondents-petitioners in service for a period of 15-30 years shows the perennial nature of work and since there are no complaints/adverse remarks pointed out by the appellant-University against respondents-petitioners, it can be deemed that the services rendered by the respondents-petitioners are satisfactory. Thus, we are of the view that even as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 , the services of the respondents-petitioners are liable to be regularized.
As far as the argument with respect to the number of persons working in the University on contractual/daily wage basis is outnumbering the sanctioned posts in the University is concerned, Mr. Singh frankly submitted that services of the
(37 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
respondents-petitioners are being utilized by them without an exception which shows that there is sufficient amount of work to justify the appointment of the respondents-petitioners.
On a pointed query being raised to the counsel for the appellant, he submitted that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against any of the respondents-petitioners and their conduct is found to be satisfactory.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellantUniversity of non-joinder of the State of Rajasthan as party respondent is noted to be rejected for the reason that in some of the cases, the State of Rajasthan has been arrayed as respondent. Even otherwise, it is the responsibility of the appellant-University to take necessary sanction/clearance from the State of Rajasthan for regularization of the respondents-petitioners as their services are being utilized in the University for almost 2-3 decades. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case as the similarly situated persons have been regularized by the University and in other cases, this Court has already pronounced the judgments by various orders which have been affirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 was pleased to observed as under :-
22.1. The normal Rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle
(38 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal Rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to wellrecognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their conterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization.”
We are also of the view that since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondentspetitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated and working in the organization should not be dragged in the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits
(39 of 39)
[SAW-347/2019]
as the employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court of law.
Our opinion in the preceding para is fortified by the observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in somewhat similar case titled as Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021) decided on 26.07.2021 has also held as under:-
13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being given the benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case (supra). The right of the Respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court.
In view of the discussions made above, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Benches. The appeals, being bereft of merit, are hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
083-184-/praveenVivek/-
3 issues framed by the court
Were long-serving university workers engaged through placement agencies entitled to regularization on parity with similarly situated employees?
Did engagement beyond sanctioned posts preclude regularization in these cases?
Did non-joinder of the State warrant rejection of the regularization claims?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas UniversityFollowed¶825
Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University
Dr. Vikrant Sharma vs. Jai Narayan Vyas UniversityFollowed¶825
Dr. Vikrant Sharma vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University
Deepak Dave Vs JNVUFollowed¶825
13750/2015
Khama Ram Vishnoi Vs JNVUFollowed¶825
1316/2015
Prem Chand Mehta Vs JNVUFollowed¶825
1317/2015
Narendra Surana Vs JNVUFollowed¶825
832/2015
State of Rajasthan vs. DayalalDistinguished¶832
State of Rajasthan vs. Dayalal reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 · Who else cites this
Ramavtar Sharma and Ors. vs. RSRTC and Ors.Distinguished¶832
Ramavtar Sharma and Ors. vs. RSRTC and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) WLC (Raj) 112
State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and Ors.Distinguished¶832
State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors.Applied¶826
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 · Who else cites this
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.Referred¶816
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 358 · Who else cites this
ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors.Referred¶819
ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. AIR 2015 SCW 2866 · Who else cites this
Amarkant Rai vs. State of BiharReferred¶819
Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 1229 · Who else cites this
Sheo Narian Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.Referred¶819
Sheo Narian Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. AIR 2018 SC 233 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar SrivastavaApplied¶833
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 · Who else cites this
Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors.Relied on¶844
Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur
Mukesh Sharma
Shera Tak
Harish Kumar Parihar
Sampat Raj
Indrajit Mahanty
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
