Regularisation cut-off dates are valid when tied to legislative purpose and substantive continuity of service.

A statutory cut-off date for absorbing temporary lecturers was upheld because it had a rational nexus with the object of regularising lecturers of long standing and did not create an arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 was construed to require substantive continuous service from a date prior to 25 June 1975 up to commencement of the Ordinance, while allowing functional gaps to be ignored where continuity in substance existed. The legislation was therefore not struck down as discriminatory or arbitrary, and the challenge to the absorption scheme failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cut-off date of 25 June 1975 in the absorption scheme created an arbitrary classification between pre-emergency and post-emergency temporary lecturers and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 required only appointment before 25 June 1975 and continuance on the commencement date, or required continuous service up to that date.

Issue (i): Whether the cut-off date of 25 June 1975 in the absorption scheme created an arbitrary classification between pre-emergency and post-emergency temporary lecturers and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The object of the legislation was to absorb temporary lecturers of long standing through screening, and the choice of a date to identify the class of eligible teachers had to be tested against that object. The Court held that the legislative purpose was not to distinguish between emergency and non-emergency appointees, but to require a sufficient period of experience and service. The fixing of 25 June 1975 was treated as a convenient starting point for measuring the required tenure, not as a hostile classification. Since the date had a rational relation to the purpose of regularisation, the challenge based on discrimination failed.

Conclusion: The cut-off date was not unconstitutional and the classification did not offend Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (ii): Whether section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 required only appointment before 25 June 1975 and continuance on the commencement date, or required continuous service up to that date.

Analysis: The Court construed the words "were continuing as such" in the light of the Hindi and English texts, the preamble, the object of the scheme, and the need to regularise only temporary lecturers of long standing. It rejected the earlier narrower reading that mere intermittent service before 25 June 1975, followed by a return to service on the commencement date, would suffice. The provision was held to contemplate continuous service, subject to ignoring functional gaps where the teacher was in substance in continuous employment. On that construction, the legislative choice of tenure was within legislative wisdom and not open to attack as arbitrary.

Conclusion: Section 3 required continuous service from a date prior to 25 June 1975 up to the commencement of the Ordinance, subject to functional gaps being ignored where appropriate.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the absorption provision failed, the High Court's view upholding the legislation was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory date fixed for regularisation or absorption is valid if it has a rational nexus with the legislative object, and a provision requiring lecturers to be "continuing" must be construed to demand substantive continuity of service consistent with the purpose of absorbing temporary lecturers of long standing.

---