1985 (3) TMI 298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the date 25.6.1975 for considering lecturers eligible for screening.
2. Interpretation of the expression used in section 3 of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the date 25.6.1975
The main contention was whether the date 25.6.1975, which coincides with the imposition of emergency in India, was arbitrarily chosen and if it created an invalid differentiation between pre-emergency and post-emergency appointments. The learned single judge found the date arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it had no nexus with the purpose of the Act, which was to regularize temporary lecturers of long standing. The Division Bench, however, disagreed, stating that the date was chosen as a convenient reference point and did not intend to create an arbitrary distinction. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's view, stating that the choice of date was within the legislative wisdom and had a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring a certain tenure of experience for absorption.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the expression used in section 3 of the Act
The key issue was the interpretation of section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979. The learned single judge, relying on the interpretation in Tiwari's case, held that a lecturer must have been in service before 25.6.1975 and again on 12.6.1978 to be eligible for absorption, even if there were breaks in between. The Division Bench disagreed, stating that continuous employment from a date prior to 25.6.1975 to 12.6.1978 was required. The Supreme Court concurred with the Division Bench, emphasizing that the expression "were continuing as such" indicated the need for continuous employment, aligning with the Act's objective of regularizing lecturers with long-standing service. The Court clarified that functional gaps should be ignored in determining continuous service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Division Bench's interpretation that continuous service from a date prior to 25.6.1975 to 12.6.1978 was necessary for eligibility under the Act. The Court also noted that the choice of 25.6.1975 as a reference date was not arbitrary and had a rational basis related to the Act's objective. The Court suggested that functional gaps should be ignored in assessing continuous service for absorption.