Judgment S. P. Singh, J. 1. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were engaged ou part time basis to delive lectures at different Government polytechnics maintained by the Government of Bihar, for which they are paid honorarium at the rats fixed per lecture subject to a maximum honorarium per month fixed from time to time, have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners the same pay scale which is being paid to the full time regularly appointed lecturers working in the various Government Polytechnics maintained by the State of Bihar. They have also claimed regularisation of their services on the ground that they are being discriminated against by being compelled to discharge the same duties as are discharged by full-time lecturers of the Government Polytechnics, but their tenure of appointment is precarious and the honorarium paid to them not comparable with the emoluments paid to regularly appointed full-time lecturers. 2. I shall take the relevant facts from C. W. J. C. No.6751 of 1991. There are 33 petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. They claim that they are Engineering graduates, each one of them possessing B. Sc (Engineering)Degree from a recognised institute/university. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respective Principals of the Institutions, they applied for appointment as part-time lecturers in different years. They were selected to work against the post of part-time lecturer, and this was approved by the department of Science and Technology. They were to be paid honorarium at the rate prescribed for each lecture, subject to a maximum amount such month. The honorarium payable to the petitioners was enhanced from time to time. The petitioners took engineering classes in the same manner as the permanent lecturers of the Institutes. They bad also to perform invigilation work, setting of question papers, evaluation of answer-books etc. They have performed these duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and in this manner they have put in several years as part-time lecturers. 3. It is contended that the Government by its communication dated 26-2-1991 enhanced the honorarium to Rs.60/-per lecture from Rs.30/-per lecture, subject to a maximum of Rs.1300/-per month. They have performed these duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and in this manner they have put in several years as part-time lecturers. 3. It is contended that the Government by its communication dated 26-2-1991 enhanced the honorarium to Rs.60/-per lecture from Rs.30/-per lecture, subject to a maximum of Rs.1300/-per month. However, they are being denied regular scale of pay of Rs.700-1300/-which is being paid to the lecturers appointed on regular basis According to them, since the nature of duties discharged and the responsibilities shouldered by them are of the same quality and nature as those discharged by regularly recruited full time lecturers, on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, they are entitled to be paid the same emolument as are being paid to full time lecturers. They have also invoked the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and submitted that there is no reason to distinguish between part-time and full-time lecturers, if they are required to perform the same duties and shoulder similar responsibilities. It is their case that since they have rendered services for so many years, they must be absorbed in the regular service of the State and cannot be subjected to exploitation by the State. The denial of regularisation, according to them, is denial of justice to them. The petitioners have represented before the concerned authorities for the regularisation of their services but that has yielded no result. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have prayed that they be regularised in service and be paid the same emoluments as are being paid to the regularly appointed lecturers at the various Government Polytechnics. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, it has been averred that the post of teachers of Engineering Colleges, government Polytechnics and Mining Institutes are gazetted posts. These posts are duly filled up by open advertisement on all India basis and on the basis of recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The rule is that when vacancies occur, after getting the roster clearance on the point of reservation by the Personnel Department, a requisition is made to the Bihar public Service Commission, and thereafter other steps are taken to fill up the vacancies. The rule is that when vacancies occur, after getting the roster clearance on the point of reservation by the Personnel Department, a requisition is made to the Bihar public Service Commission, and thereafter other steps are taken to fill up the vacancies. The process of recruitment entails delay and, therefore, with a view to safe guard the interest of the students studying in the different institutions, the Government engages suitable qualified persons serving in other government institutions, semi Government or private institutions or Industrial undertakings as part-time lecturers against the sanctioned posts on payment of honorarium. Initially the honorarium was allowed at the rate of Rs.10/-per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.200/-per month vide Government order dated 1 7-1960. This was subsequently enhanced to Rs 20/-per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.400/-per month for Government polytechnics in the year 1975. In the year 1987, the honorarium pavable to part-time lecturers in Government Polytechnics was increased to Rs.30/-per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs 800/-per month. Again in the year 1991 the honorarium was increased to Rs.60/-per lecture subject to a maximum of rs.1300/-per month Annexure-A contains the decision of the Government of Bihar dated 1st July, I960 whereby the State Government decided that in order that the teaching work in the various Engineering Colleges, Government polytechnics and Mining Institutes may not suffer due to delay in appointment on the posts of teachers on the recommendation of the Bihar Public servic Commission, suitable qualified persons serving in other Government institutions, semi Government and private Institutes or Industrial undertakings, should be engaged as part-time teachers against the sanctioned vacant posts etc. on payment of honorarium of Rs loaper lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.200/-per month each. It was further decided to vest the power of engaging part-time teachers in the Director of Industries, Bihar, who was to certify that the particular person engaged as such possesses the requisite qualification for teaching, and that their engagement was against sanctioned post lying vacant. Honorarium was to be sanctioned by the above officer on a monthly basis. The temporary appointment shall terminate as soon as the vacant posts against which part-time teachers are engaged, are filed by the Government. Annexure a series are the different Government orders issued by the Government from time to time enhancing the amount payable by way of honorarium. 5. Honorarium was to be sanctioned by the above officer on a monthly basis. The temporary appointment shall terminate as soon as the vacant posts against which part-time teachers are engaged, are filed by the Government. Annexure a series are the different Government orders issued by the Government from time to time enhancing the amount payable by way of honorarium. 5. According to the State, the engagement of part-time lecturers does not amount to an appointment. If is only a local arrangement to enable them to deliver lectures at the Government Polytechnics on the basis bf honorarium paid for each lecture delivered in the month, subject to a maximum amount fixed by the Government Since it is purely a temporary arrangement, neither the Bihar Public Service Commission was consulted in the matter nor was any roster clearance required, which is a must before a regular appointment is made Letters of appointment make it quite clear that the engagement was as part-time lecturer and the same could be terminated at any time. In any event as soon as a regular candidate was appointed against a sanctioned post, the part-time lecturer against that post would stand automatically disengaged. Having regard to the scheme of engagement of part-time lecturers, letters of appointment were never issued by the government. Only office orders were issued by the Director, Science and technology, permitting part-time lecturers to deliver lectures at the institute, and even the said officer orders make it abundantly clear that it was only a temporary arrangement and the tenure was precarious. They were not allowed time scale of pay permissible to full-time lecturers, nor were they entitled to the privilege of casual leave, earned leave, dearness allowance etc. allowed to regular employees. They were free to leave the work without information to the department and without obtaining any permission for the same. It has been further clarified by the order of the department of Science and Technology dated 14-9-90 that part-time lecturers should be engaged against vacant posts that exist, and not more than 2 part-time lecturers can be appointed against one vacant post. Obviously, therefore, if two part-time lecturers have been working against one vacant post, both cannot be regularised as permanent lecturers against a single post. 6. Before adverting to the averment in the rejoinder. Obviously, therefore, if two part-time lecturers have been working against one vacant post, both cannot be regularised as permanent lecturers against a single post. 6. Before adverting to the averment in the rejoinder. I may refer to the letters of appointment annexed by the petitioners to the writ petition office orders, which are said to be letters of appointment, state that the appointment has been made against sanctioned post as a surely temporary measure and may be terminated at any time without notice. For performing the said work the appointees shall be paid a sum of Rs.20/- per lecture bv way of honorarium, subject to a maximum of Rs.400/- per month. Some of the letters of appointment make it clear that the engagement will stand terminated as soon as a lecturer is regularly appointed against the sanctioned post. From Annexure 2/b, which is another office order, the engagement has not been described as an appointment; but it is stated that the persons named in the order are permitted to work as part-time lecturers. It further clarifies that permission granted was purely, temporard in the nature of a local arrangement, that could be terminated without any notice and shall be deemed to have been terminated on the appointment of a regularly recruited professor/lecturer. 7. It would thus appear that the decision of the Government pursuant to which such part time lecturars have been appointed, leaves no room for doubt that part-time lecturers were permitted to work against sanctioned posts as a purely temporary arrangement pending appointment of regularly recruited candidates. The arrangement could be terminated at any time without notice, and those engaged were only entitled to a honorarium. The office order permitting the petitioners to work also made the position clear that the appointment was on part time basis and was a purely temporary arrangement. The petitioners could, therefore, entertain no expectation that in due course their services may be regularised. One fact which is very significant is that the Government decision to appoint part-time lecturers is clear and specific that "suitable qualified persons serving in other Government institutions, semi Government and private Institutes or Industrial undertakings should be engaged as part-time teachers against sanctioned vacant posts etc. on payment of a honorarium of Rs.10/- each per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs 200/- per month each. on payment of a honorarium of Rs.10/- each per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs 200/- per month each. " The Government decision, therefore, permitted the engagement as part-time lecturers of persons, who were already employed elsewhere. There can, therefore, be no doubt that in terms of the Government decision, no one could have entertained a reasonable expectation that for long service rendered as part time lecturer he may be regularised in service. The Government decision also makes it clear that the appointment as part-time lecturer was not a mere pretence, because the eligibility conditions laid down in the Government decision make it a condition precedent that the persons so engaged should already be in the employment of other institution, institute or undertaking. It appears that the appointing authorities have observed the rule laid down in Annexure-A in its breach. The petitioners claim that they are solely dependant upon the honorarium paid to them by the Government Polytechnics. Obviously, therefore, the appointments have not been made in accordance with the decision of the Government, and the appointing authorities as also the approving authority were remiss in not obeying the Government decision which they were bound to obey. 8. The petitioners filed a petition before this Court on 25-11-1993 complaining that on 12-11-1992 an advertisement had been published in the local daily inviting applications for filling up 139 posts of lecturers ia the different Government Polytechnics only from amongst those persons, who have retired from Government Polytechnics or Engineering Colleges as lecturers Assistant Professors, Readers/assistant Professors and Professors, and who have not attained the ape of 63 years. The advertisement also called upon the applicants to indicate the amount which they expected by way of emolument for the rervices to be rendered by them. According to the petitioners, the posts against which the appointments were to be made on the basis of such advertisement included the posts apainst which the petitioners have been working as part-time lecturers. 9. The petitioners have also brought to the notice of this Court that another notification dated 28-10-1993 has been issued by which different assistant Professors/lecturers working in different Engineering Colleges, which were private institutions and were taken over by the Government, have been posted in the different Government Polytechnics and Mining Institutes. They apprehend that as a result of this the services of several of the petitioners were likely to be dispensed with. They apprehend that as a result of this the services of several of the petitioners were likely to be dispensed with. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for leave to amend the writ petition with a view to challenge the validity of the notification dated 28-10-93 (Annexure-37 ). By another application filed on 25-11-1993. the petitioners prayed that the aforesaid notification dated 28-10-93 (Annexure-37) be stayed Yet another application was filed by the petitioners praying that the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the advertisement dated 12-11-1992 (Annexure-36) by transferring teachers from other institutes to the posts against which the petitioners held appointment as temporary lecturers, and further to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners. It is not necessary to refer to some other applications filed in this connection by the petitioners, since the some are not relevant for deciding the issues which arise for consideration in the instant writ petition. 10. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, (submitted that in C. W. J. C. No.6751 of s991 there are 33 petititioners of whom two were appointed in the year 1983, namely, petitioner nos.1 and 6 Similarly petitioner Nos 17 and 74 were appointed in the year 1985 and petitioner No.3 in the year 1986. In the year 1987 three of the petitioners were appointed, namely, petitioner Nos 2, 14 and 20 In the year 1988, 7 of the petitioners were appointed, namely, petitioner Nos 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 31 and 32 In the year 1989 petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 15 were appointed. In the year 1990 as many as 11 of the petitioners were appointed, namely, petitioner Nos 8, 9.16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 33, In the year 1991, 2 of the petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos 19 and 30 were appointed He submitted that all the appointments have been made against sanctioned posts. The posts were duly notified and a Selection Committee was constituted which interviewed the candidates. On the basis of its recommendation, the petitioners were appointed as part-time lecturers. For several years no regular recruitment has been made in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the procedure followed for appointment of part-time lecturers should now be considered to be the mode of recruitment. The normal mode of recruitment through the Bihar Public Service Commission has completely been abandoned. For several years no regular recruitment has been made in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the procedure followed for appointment of part-time lecturers should now be considered to be the mode of recruitment. The normal mode of recruitment through the Bihar Public Service Commission has completely been abandoned. He, therefore, submitted that law apart, on the principle of equity, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief to the petitioners. In any event, the respondents should be restrained from removing the petitioners till all the posts are filled up, either by direct rectruitment following the normal procedure, or by regularisation of services of the petitioners. He submitted that the services of the petitioners can be regularised by referring their cases to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The matter may be referred to the Commission only for the purpose of judging the qualification of the petitioners as on the date of first engagement. In the alter native, he submitted that the competition may be limited to the petitioners similarly platced, meaning thereby the petitioners appointed in the same batch. No test need be held, and selection be made only on the basis of their qualification and suitabitity within the time frame in accordance with the rulfs and the norms to be framed by the State. 11. Mr. BASUDEO Prasad, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in C. WJC No.13085 of 1993 submitted that the petitioners have been appointed between the years 1986 and 1991 pursuant to a Government decision dated 1-7-1960 (Annexure 9) which is the same as Annexure-A in C. W. J. C. No 6751 of 1991. The aforesaid Government decision was never challenged. The petitioners constitute a class by themselves as all of them are suitable and qualified for the post of lecturer in Government Polytechnics. Having served for a considerably long period, they cannot now be ignored. If the Government decides to regularise their services that cannot be objected to. Consequently, they can also claim regularisation They deserve to be treated a little differently from others who are yet to ioin. He also submitted that it was not necessary for the Government to frame rules, because even in the absence of rules, the matter could be regulated by Executive instructions, which may lay down the procedure to most a particular contingency. He also submitted that it was not necessary for the Government to frame rules, because even in the absence of rules, the matter could be regulated by Executive instructions, which may lay down the procedure to most a particular contingency. He submitted that Annexure-9 dated 1-7-60 should be treated as a regulation made in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. There is no law or rule that the Bihar Public Service Commission must be consulted and, therefore, in the absence of rules, consultation with the Bihar public Service Commission was not mandatory Since the petitioners constitute a class by themselves, brought into existence by a legal method, they have acquired an indefensible right on the basis of judge made laws. 12. Dr. S N. Jha, counsel appearing for the petitioner in C. W J C. No.7883 of 1992 submitted that the appointments were made after the posts were duly advertised/notified. The appointment were made regularly on part-time basis, and the persons appointed were eligible and qualified There can be no reason to discriminate against time, particularly when it appears that those appointed in the private institutions, even without following the regular procedure, were now sought to be appointed against regular posts after taking over of those private institutions by the State. The move of the government in recent years, as well as in the year 1993, is clearly unfair because if such teachers of private institutions, can be appointed against posts of lecturer etc. there was no reason why the petitioners who have worked for several vears should not be regularised. Moreover, the facts disclose that the Government is willing even to engage retired hands for teaching purpose on payment of honorarium. The petitioners were all qualified and eligible when they were initially appointed, and continue to be go even today. They from a separate and special class and, therefore, if special treatment is meted out to them, there will be no violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of india. 13. Mr. S. P. Mukherji, counsel appearing for the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.9186 of 1991 and C W J. C. No, 2236 of 1993 submitted that having regard to the facts of the case, the services of the petitioners should be regularised If that is done, it will not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. S. P. Mukherji, counsel appearing for the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.9186 of 1991 and C W J. C. No, 2236 of 1993 submitted that having regard to the facts of the case, the services of the petitioners should be regularised If that is done, it will not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. Of course the norms must be declared and followed in the matter of regularisation as well, as has been laid down by the Supreme in several decisions. He submitted that the concept of a part-time lecturer was not a new or novel concept. The University statutes also provide for appointment of part-time teachers in the University. It could not be said that such appointments are illegal. The petitioners having worked for sufficiently long periods, a hope was generated in them that on account of long engagement, on equity, they may be regularised. For the mistake of the Government, the petitioners Cannot be punished They are not back door entrants, becuase they were appointed following the practice, which was in vogue in almost all the Government Polytechnics. The State could not challenge its own order, as it was prevented by the principle of promissory estoppel to raise any plea with regard to the illegal nature of appointments. If at all, the mistake was committed not by the petitioners, but by the appointing authorities. The respondents, therefore, cannot take advantage of their own wrongs Counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions adopted the arguments advanced by the senior counsels appearing in the other cases which I have noticed above. 14. The Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners were not appointed as part-time lecturers, but only (sic 99) permitted to work as part-time lecturers by an office order on the clear understanding that the engagements were of temporary duration and that the same could be terminated without prior notice at any time. The petitioners were entitled to receive only an honorarium on the basis of number of lectures that they delivered in a month, subject to a maximum fixed from time to time. The appointments were in the nature of a local arrangement made with a view to carry on the teaching work in the Government Polytechnics. The petitioners were entitled to receive only an honorarium on the basis of number of lectures that they delivered in a month, subject to a maximum fixed from time to time. The appointments were in the nature of a local arrangement made with a view to carry on the teaching work in the Government Polytechnics. The selection and the recruitment rules were not followed, inasmuch as no open advertisement was issued on all India basis, and the matter was never processed through the bihar Public Service Commission The post of lecturer in the Government polytechnics being a gazetted posts, it was mandatory that appointments be made against such posts on the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar public Service Commission, Referring to the Bihar Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions Regulation, 1957, he submitted that the appointment of lecturers in the Government Polytechnics was not one of the subjects which is not required to be processed through the Bihar Public Service Commission, and therefore appointment on the basis of recommendation made by the commission was mandatory. The question as to whether the appointing authority, namely, the State, was bound by the recommendation made by the bihar Public Service Commission, was a different matter altogether. That could not be a justification for by-passing the Bihar Public Service commission. He submitted that having regard to the exigency of the situation, and particularly in view of the fact that only a part-time arrangement was being made at local level, it was not considered expedient to process the matter through the Public Service Commission. The engagements were temporary in nature, and in clear terms it was mentioned that the appointment were part-time appointments He submitted that part-time employees of the government cannot equate themselves with full-time employees of the government. A part-time employee cannot be regularised. He further referred to Annexure-A dated 1-7-60 and submitted that so far as the State is concerned, the decision to appoint lecturers on part-time basis was subject to certain conditions. The Government decision made it clear that the appointment on part-time basis shall be made only against sanctioned posts lying vacant, and that only suitable and qualified persons serving in other Government, semi government institutions or organisation, or even private institutions and undertakings should be engaged as part-time teachers. The Government decision made it clear that the appointment on part-time basis shall be made only against sanctioned posts lying vacant, and that only suitable and qualified persons serving in other Government, semi government institutions or organisation, or even private institutions and undertakings should be engaged as part-time teachers. The decision of the Government, therefore, unambiguously clarified that the engagement was a purely part-time engagement and those eligible for such appointment must be persons, who were otherwise employed elsewhere. There was. therefore, a clear intention evinced in the Governments decision, that persons to be appointed on part-time basis were not to be treated as government Servants, nor was there any question of their being absorbed in government service later. The petitioners know of it and yet if they managed to get appointment without fulfilling the conditions laid down in the government decision, they cannot now claim any further benefit. In fact if the petitioners were not employed elsewhere at the time of their first engagement, they were not even eligible for appointment even on part-time basis. The appointments made contrary to the Government decision, if that decision is treated as or regulation, as urged on behalf of same of the petitioners, framed under Article 162 of the Constitution if India, cannot acquire legal sanctity. 15. He further explained that the appointments were made in special circumstances. Since regular appointments took time, and the State was of the view that on account of such delay teaching work in the Polytechnics might suffer, a conscious decision was taken to engage eligible candidates working in other organisations, on part-time basis. Letters of appointment clearly specify that in the event of a person being regularly appointed to the post, part-time engagement shall cases automatically. Even otherwise in law wehre appointments are made on temporary or ad hoc basis, once a regular appointment is made, such temporary or ad hoc appointed must give way to the regularly appointed candidates. He also emphasised the fact that the appointments were not made after due publicity, as would have been the case if the petitioners were to be regularly appointed. He also emphasised the fact that the appointments were not made after due publicity, as would have been the case if the petitioners were to be regularly appointed. He referred to the materials on record to show that by local advertisement/notice, applications were invited and candidates selected Some of the documents on record would show that against the vacancies notified very few candidates appeared for interview, and in some cases the number of candidates interviewed for selection as equal to the number of vacancies, and in some cases even less. The petitioners, therefore, cannot take advantage of the fact that the posts were supposedly notified, as if the posts were advertised the newspaper or that the matter was given wide publicity. 16. He also submitted that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not applicable in the facts of this case. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred that whereas part-time lecturers engaged only 22 classes in a month the full-time lecturers engaged 22 classes in a week. Having regard to this be submitted that, at best, in equity the petitioners could be permitted to compete with other candidates, who may apply in response to the advertisements that may be issued for filling up the posts on regular basis That process has begun and the petitioners, therefore may be well advised to apply for regular appointment. Unless they are appointed in a regular way, they must make way for those who are appointed in accordance with law in a regular manner on the basis of open all India competition. 17. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have referred to a large number of decisions in support of their respective contentions. Before considerins these decisions, it would be useful first to consider the decision of the State government and its implications, so far as the appointment of part-time lecturers is concerned, and also to consider the manner in which such apointments have been made. 18. It is not disputed before me that the decision to appoint part-time lecturers was taken by the Governmsat as is evident from Annexure-A in [c. W. J. C. No 6751 of 1991]. In fact, counsel for the petitioners also rely upon the same decision to justify their appointment. 18. It is not disputed before me that the decision to appoint part-time lecturers was taken by the Governmsat as is evident from Annexure-A in [c. W. J. C. No 6751 of 1991]. In fact, counsel for the petitioners also rely upon the same decision to justify their appointment. Some of them contend that in the absence of rules, the said decision must be taken to be a regulation framed under Article 102 of the Constitution of India in exercise of executive power, which is co-extensive with the legislative powers of the state. It has not been disputed that the posts being Gazetted posts, the normal mode of recruitment is to notify the vacancies and to issue an advertisement on all India basis inviting applications for appointment The matter has to be processed although the Bihar Public Service Commission and on the basis of recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission the appointment has to be made by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that under the Bihar Public Service Commission (Limitation of functions) Regulation, 1957, the matter relating to appointment of lecturers in the Government Polytechnics has not been taken out of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. It must, therefore, be held that in appointing lecturers and other members of teaching staff in Government Polytechnics against a gazetted posts, the posts are required to be advertised on all india basis and thereafter the selection has to be made by the Bihar Public service Commission. On the basis of select list prepared by the Bihar Public service Commission, the State Government is required to make the appointments. It is also not disputed that this procedure has been followed in making regular appointments. 19. Since the method of regular appointment entails considerable time, the Government thought that with a view to avoid inconvenience to the students of such polytechnics, and so that the teaching in these polytechnics may not suffer, part-time appointment may be made with a view to carry on the work till such time on regular appointments are made. The decision of the Government in this regard contained in Annexure-A dated 1-7-60 on which reliance has been placed by all the parties, is quite clear and unequivocal. The decision of the Government in this regard contained in Annexure-A dated 1-7-60 on which reliance has been placed by all the parties, is quite clear and unequivocal. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the letter is being reproduced below: "i am directed to say that the State Government have been pleased to decide that in order that the teaching work at the various engineering Colleges and Schools and Mining Institutes may not suffer due to delay in appointment to posts of teachers on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, suitable qualified persons service in other Govt. Institution, Semi-Govt. and private Institutes or Industrial undertaking should be engaged as part time teachers against sanctioned vacant posts etc , on payment of an honorarium of Rs.10/-each per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.200/-per month each. The State Government are further pleased to vest the power of engaging the part time teachers in the Director of Industries bihar who will certify that the particular persons engaged to death possess the requisite qualifications for teaching and that their engagement is against sanctioned posts lying vacant. The honorarium will be sanctioned by the above officer on a monthly basis. This temporary appointment will terminate as took as the vacant posts against which part-time teacher are engaged are filled by Govt. " 20. It will appear from the Government decision that in order that the teaching work at the various institutions may not suffer has to delay in appoinment on posts of teachers on the recommendation of the Bihar Public service Commission, a decision was being taken to appoint suitable and qualified persons on part-time basis. The decision further emphasises the fact that suitable and qualified persons serving in other Government institutions, Semi Government and private institutes or Industrial undertakings should be engaged as part-time teachers. This clearly implies that only those persons were to be employed on part-time basis, who were gainfully employed elsewhere and possessed the requisite qualification. The decision, therefore, did not envisage the appointment of persons like the petitioners, who were not employed elsewhere It was also clarified that only suitable and qualified persons were to be engaged on part-time basis against sanctioned posts on payment of honorarium. Obviously, therefore, no one could be appoined on part-time basis unless a vacant post existed. The decision, therefore, did not envisage the appointment of persons like the petitioners, who were not employed elsewhere It was also clarified that only suitable and qualified persons were to be engaged on part-time basis against sanctioned posts on payment of honorarium. Obviously, therefore, no one could be appoined on part-time basis unless a vacant post existed. This was obviously so because the appointment on part-time basis was to be made on account of existence of vacancies, which was to be filled up in normal course, but the delay involved justified the appointment on part-time basis. Further. the Director of Industries was required to certify that the persons engaged possessed the requisite qualification and that their engagement was against sanctioned posts lying vacant The temporary appointment was to terminate as soon as the vacant post against which a part-time teacher was engaged was filled up by the Government. It is not disputed that the government later clarified that as against one vacant post not more than two part-time lecturers may be appointed. This was obviously done in the interest of teaching work in the institutes, because a part-time lecturer was not required to shoulder the same work lead as a regularly appointed full time teacher. 21. The Government decision is so clear that it admits of no controversy. The appointments were to be made on part-time basis because it was thought that filling up of the vacancies may take time, and consequently the teaching work may suffer. The policy envisaged that as soon as regular appointments were made, engagement on part-time basis must terminate. Precaution was taken to now that only suitable and qualified candidates who were employed elsewhere were engaged by the Government on purely part-time basis. There was no scope for misunderstanding the decision. Part-time lecturers were only entitled to honorarium and nothing more. 22. Much was sought to be made of the fact that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts and that they were appointed after due detection by a Selection Committee. As T have already discussed earlier, part-time lecturers were engaged pursuant to Government decision against the sanctioned posts of full-time lecturers. 22. Much was sought to be made of the fact that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts and that they were appointed after due detection by a Selection Committee. As T have already discussed earlier, part-time lecturers were engaged pursuant to Government decision against the sanctioned posts of full-time lecturers. Necessity to appoint part-time lecturers as a temporary arrangement arose from the fact that permanent posts to be filled up by regular recruitment were lying vacant the petitioners cannot, however, take any advantage of the fact that they were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, because those posts were meant for regular appointed to be appointed by the normal procedure through the bihar Public Service Commission. Obviously, therefore, they have to make any for those who may be regularly recruited, particularly when there are express stipulation in the office order engaging them, that their engagement on part-time basis was purely temporary, and that their engagement shall stand terminated automatically when the posts were filled up on regular basis, if not earlier. 23. The submission that the petitioners were appointed after an interview, it not of much help to them because admittedly the normal rule of advertising the post on all India basis and of making recruitment thereafter through Bihar Public Service Commission, was never followed. Even the socalled notices notifying the vacancies in the different polytechnics were not given enough publicity. It is apparent from the materials placed on the record by the petitioners themselves that very few candidates were considered for appointment pursuant to such notices. There is no material to show that the vacancies were widely published, and it appears that the notices, if at all given any publicity, were displayed only on the notice Boards of the respective institutions, and that is why verv few candidates offered themselves for apppintment on part-time basis. This is amply demonstrated by the material on record. It would appear from Annexure 3/f that in the Government polytechnic, Saharea, four vacancies existed against which part-time lecturers were proposed to be appointed. In the interview conducted on 17-3-1986 only one candidate appeared and be was recommended for appointment. This is amply demonstrated by the material on record. It would appear from Annexure 3/f that in the Government polytechnic, Saharea, four vacancies existed against which part-time lecturers were proposed to be appointed. In the interview conducted on 17-3-1986 only one candidate appeared and be was recommended for appointment. Similarly, in the year 1983 three appointments were sought to be made on part-time basis in Civil Engineering Department, three in Mechanical engineering and one only in Electrical Engineering As would appear from annexure 6/c. only three candidates appeared at the interview for selection as part-time lecturers in Civil Engineering and all the three were appointed. No candidate offered himself for appointment in the department of Mechanical engineering. In the department of Electrical Engineering, only one candidate appeared and be was appointed. It is not necessary for me to examine the proceedings of each and every Government Polytechnic which would show that there was not much response to the notices notifying the vacancies of part-time lecturers. The annexures aforesaid, and there may be many mere, only give an idea as to the manner in which the posts were advertised and the interviews conducted. Obviously, therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and be circumstances of the case, not much importance can be attached to the notifying of vacancies and the holding of interviews by the different government Polytechnics before appointing part-time lecturers. It appears that there was really no Selection of candidates, and the notices, if any, were issued only to suit the candidates who may be available for appointment on part-time basis. There is material on record to show that really there was no advertisement and the process at selection was a more formality. 24. It was next submitted that the appointment of part-time lecturers in educational institutions is not something unknown to law. Even the university statutes provide for appointment of lecturers on part-time basis. The appointment of part-time lecturers, therefore, can not be said to he irregular or illegal. It cannot be disouted that the University statutes do provide for appointment of part-time lecturers. In the case of Government polytechnics, the Government took a decision to make appointments on part-time basis till the vacancies were not filled up by the candidates regularly selected. An University teacher appointed on part-time basis cannot claim regularisation or absorption in regular service. It cannot be disouted that the University statutes do provide for appointment of part-time lecturers. In the case of Government polytechnics, the Government took a decision to make appointments on part-time basis till the vacancies were not filled up by the candidates regularly selected. An University teacher appointed on part-time basis cannot claim regularisation or absorption in regular service. The very nature of his appointment is indicative of the fact that he can have no claim for absorption in the Government university service. In the case of a Government Ploytechnics, appointments were made on part-time basis clearly stipulating that the appointees will be paid only honorarium and that the appointment shall be terminated at any time without notice. It was further provided that on the appointment of regulariy selected candidates by the regular process, the appointment against the post on part-time basis, shall terminate automatically. The mere fact that both, a part-time lecturer and a full-time lecturer, engage classes and, therefore, perform similar duties cannot be a ground for ignoring the basic difference in the nature of the appointments. Part-time lecturers are a class distinct from regular full-time lecturers A full-time lecturer regularly appointed is a whole-time Government servant. He cannot take up any other employment under any employer. Even in regard to other activities including business, or commercial venture, he has not the freedom to-carry on such activities except in some cases with the prior permission of the Government. He is entitled to pensionary benefits and other allowances under the Rules. He is also subject to the disciplinary Code of the Government. On the other band, a part-time employee is free to engage himself in any other activity. It is open to him to seek employment under any other employer. In fact, the Government decision, Annexure-A provided for appointment on part-time basis of persons, who were already employed elsewhere. A part-time employee is not entitled to pensionary benefits and other allowances admissible to a full-time Government employee. He is only paid honorarium and his service can be terminated at any time without notice. Unlike a full-time Government servant, his terms and conditions of service are not governed by rules which are applicable to full-time Government servants. A part-time employee is not entitled to pensionary benefits and other allowances admissible to a full-time Government employee. He is only paid honorarium and his service can be terminated at any time without notice. Unlike a full-time Government servant, his terms and conditions of service are not governed by rules which are applicable to full-time Government servants. The distinction, therefore, between a part-time employee and a full-time employee is real, and cannot be ignored merely by reference to the fact that both of them deliver lectures and engage classes in the performance of their duties Assuming that it is permissible for the Government on part-time basis, and such appointment are not illegal but recognised by law, there can be no justification for claiming that part-time employment should be regularised as full-time employment. The question of regularisation can arise only in a case of irregularity, and not in a case where an appointment is made in accordance with law. On their own argument, therefore, it is clear that part-time employment is also recognised by law and therefore the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as full-time employees. This is not a case where an appointment is sought to be cancelled or terminated on the ground that it was illegally made. Nor is this a case where persons appointed as full time lecturers on temporary basis claim regularisation against that post. This is really a case where persons validly appointed to a post claim regularisation against another post, even though they were not appointed according to the procedure prescribed for appointment to that other post. 25 I may also notice the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Government decision, Annexure-A should be considered to be a regulation, and since the appointment have beeu made in accordance with a regulation, they must be treated as regular appointees. The argument is misconceived because Annexure-A does not purport to provide a procedure for regular appointment. Moreover, I have already held that the petitioners were not even eligible for appointment on the basis of the Government decision as contained in Annexure-A because they were not employed in any other organisation which was a condition precedent for appointment on part-time basis. Apart from these, in law, the posts being gazetted, had to be filled up on the basis of advertisement and selection by the Bihar Public Service commission. Apart from these, in law, the posts being gazetted, had to be filled up on the basis of advertisement and selection by the Bihar Public Service commission. It is not disputed that the Bihar Public Service Commission is required to be consulted when appointment is made against gazetted posts, unless the jurisdiction of the Commission is curtailed by law. It is also not disputed that so far as Bihar Public Service Commission (Limitation of functions) Regulation, 1957 is concerned, it does not exclude from the purview of the Commissions jurisdiction selection of candidates for appointment as lecturers in Government Polytechnics. Bihar Public service Commission, therefore, was required to hold a competitive examination and to select and recommend candidates for appointment as lecturers. The fact that the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission may not be binding on the Government is of on consequence. If the law requires that the commission should be consulted, the Commission could not be by-passed. In the case of appointment of lecturers in Government Polytechnics, an open advertisement followed by a competitive examination to be conducted by the bihar Public Service Commission was mandatory. If such a law existed, there was no scope for the operation of an executive instruction contrary to the law. The Government decision as contained in Annexure-A therefore, must be confined in its application to engagement on part-time basis to meet the exigency of the situation created by the existence of vacancies in the cadre of lecturers in different Polytechnics. The procedure adopted under Annexure-A cannot substitute the procedure required to be followed in law, which envisages an advertisement on all India basis, selection by the Bihar Public service Commission and appointment on the basis of Commissions recommendation. Law is now fairly well settled by several decisions of the Supreme court. Recently in [ (1994) 2 SCC 630 ] (J and K Public Service Commission V/s. Dr. Narinder Mohan and ors ) the Supreme Court observed : "existence of statutory rules is not a condition precedent to appoint an eligible and fit person to a post. The executive power is co-extensive with legislative power of the State and under Article 162. the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The executive power is co-extensive with legislative power of the State and under Article 162. the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. It is settled law that once statutory rules have been made appointment shall be only in accordance with the rules. The executive power could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but the instructions cannot and should not supplant the law, but only supplement the law. The Governor exercising the power under proviso to Sec.125 (Article 309 of the Constitution of india) made the rules which do not expressly give the power to the State Government to make ad hoc appointments. No such rule has been brought to our notice. No express power was conferred and in fact cannot be conferred to relax the rules of recruitment. Having made the rules the executive cannot fall back upon its general power under Article 162 to regularise the ad hoc appointments under the Rules. Rule 9 (3) empowers only to relax the qualification of age in particular exigencies which cannot be called in aid to relax the rules of recruitment. To tide over unforseen exigencies, power to make ad hoc appointments, may be visualised as envisaged by Explanation (b) to Rule 4 but it expressly states that by virtue of such appointment, the ad hoc appointee does not become member of the service. The Rules prescribe direct recruitment/promotion by selection as the mode of recruitment which would be done only PSC or promotion committee duly constituted and by other body. Therefore ad hoc employee should be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct recruits. A little leoway to make ad hoc appointment due to emergent exigencies, does not cloths the executive Government with power to relax the recruitment or to regularise such appointment nor to claim such appointments to be regular or in accordance with rules. Back door ad hoc appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to rules are mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The former is in negation of fair play. The later are the product of order and regularity. Back door ad hoc appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to rules are mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The former is in negation of fair play. The later are the product of order and regularity. Every eligible person need not necessarily be fit to be appointed to a post or office under the State, selection according to rules by a properly constituted commission and fitment for appointment assures fairness in selection and inhibits arbitrariness in appointments. " 26. Having considered all relevant aspects of the matter, I have no hesitation in concluding that appointment of regular full time lecturers can be made by open advertisement on all India basis, selection by Bihar Public service Commission followed by appointment made by the State Government on the basis of such recommendation This procedure was not at all followed, and, therefore, the appointment of part-time lecturers was not in accordance with law prescribing the procedure for appointment of full-time lecturers. The part-time lecturers so appointed cannot, therefore, claim to be absorbed as full time lecturers. Even the Government decision in this regard as contained in Annexure-A was not followed because the decision clearly postulates that only those persons should be employed on part-time basis who possessed the requisite qualification and who were otherwise employed elsewhere. Even so, their appointment as part time lecturer is not in issue. The claim that part-time lecturers and full-time lecturers perform similar nature of duties and are entitled to the same pay must be negative because, in fact, part-time lecturers do not work to the same extent as full-time lecturers, as has been asserted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Moreover, they are two distinct classes, and it is open to a part-time employee to engage himself in any other business/commercial activity as also to seek or continue in the employment of any other employer. They cannot, therefore, claim the same emolument as full time lecturers on the basis of equal pav for equal work, nor can they claim regularisatien against a post to which they were never appointed. 27. They cannot, therefore, claim the same emolument as full time lecturers on the basis of equal pav for equal work, nor can they claim regularisatien against a post to which they were never appointed. 27. The petitioners then submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the cases of the petitioners may now be referred to the Bihar Public Service Commission and the Commission may make its recommendation for their regular appointment In doing so the Bihar Public service Commission shall only consider the eligibility of the candidates on the date of their first engagement. In the alternative, it was suggested that a limited competition may be held for the persons similarly placed, Explaining this, it was submitted that the persons appointed in each year may be treated as a separate class and a limited competition be held for each class. Both the submissions rr. ust be rejected in view of the clear principles laid down by the supreme Court in the case of J andk Public Service Commission (supra ). The court held : "the next question is whether the direction given by the High Court to regularise the services of the respondents is valid in law. It is true that the ad hoc appointees have been continuing from 1986 on wards but their appointments are de hors the Rules. Rules prescribe only two modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the lecturers are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. The mode of recruitment suggested by the High Court, namely, regularisation by placing the service record of the respondents before the PSC and consideration thereof and PSCs recommendation in that behalf is only a by brid procedure not contemplated by the Rules. Moreover, when the Kules prescribed direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisement which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for, by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for, by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The direction, therefore, issued by the Division Bench is in negation of Articles 14 and 16 and in violation to the statutory rules, The PSC cannot be directed to devise a third mode of selection as directed by the High Court, nor be mandated to disobey the Constitution and the law. " It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment by notifying each years vacancies and for recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences It is settled law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose It is open, as early as possible, to inform the vacancies existing or anticipate to the PSC for recruitment, and that every elieible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided he satisfies the prescribed requisite qualifications. Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of inviting application for recruitment offending Articles 14 and 16. 28. Dr. S. N. Jha appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners submitted that if the teachers of taken over Colleges could be transferred to the posts held by the petitioners, there was no reason why the petitioners could not he so appointed The argument is unsustainable because in the case of taken over Colleges, terms and conditions of the existing employees of such Colleges is governed by the relevant statute. If the statute provides that the teachers of taken over Colleges shall become the employees of the government, the law must be given effect. Secondly, the taken over employees had not been engaged on part-time basis Such is not the case of the petitioners. There is no material to establish that the persons appointed in private Colleges were not eligible and qualified for appointment, and were not appointed in accordance with the relevant rules. Secondly, the taken over employees had not been engaged on part-time basis Such is not the case of the petitioners. There is no material to establish that the persons appointed in private Colleges were not eligible and qualified for appointment, and were not appointed in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioners, therefore, cannot compare themselves with the teacher of taken over Colleges whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by a special law, which provides for take over of such institutions. 29. The submission urged by Mr. S. P. Mukherjee is that for the mistake, if any, committed by the appointing authorities and the principals of the different Government Polytechnics, the petitioners should not be penalised. It was submitted that the State Government is stopped from challenging the legality of the appointment of the petitioners The submission is misconceived. It is not the case of the State Government that appointments made on part-time basis are illegal. On the contrary it is submitted on behalf of the state that part-time engagement is permissible to meet the exigency of the situation It has only been pointed out that in the instant cases, the government decision was not followed in its letter and spirit and person were appointed on part-time basis even though they were not employed elsewhere, as was the requirement of the Government decision. Apart from this, it is not the case of the Government that the appointments are illegal. In fact the case of the Government is that in terms the officer order appointing the petitioners on part-time basis, provided that engagement shall stand terminated on the appointment of regular full-time teachers. The orders also provided that the engagement could be terminated at any time without notice. No representation was made by the Government, which could lead the petitioners even to entertain a reasonable expectation that they are likely to continue indefinitely, and may be absorbed later. In fact the representation, if any, was to the contrary. No principle of estoppel, therefore, applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. The law is well settled that temporary arrangment made for carrying on the work must come to an end when regular appointments are made [see A I R 1992 S C, 2130] State of Haryana v Piara Singh), [ air 1993 SC 115 ] (Surendra Kumar Gyani V/s. . The law is well settled that temporary arrangment made for carrying on the work must come to an end when regular appointments are made [see A I R 1992 S C, 2130] State of Haryana v Piara Singh), [ air 1993 SC 115 ] (Surendra Kumar Gyani V/s. . State of Rajasthan) and [ air 1992 SC 2070 ] (Director, Institute of Management development V/s. Pushpa Srivastava]. Similarly it is now well settled that if such temporary appointments/ engagements are terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment, the provisions of Article 311 are not attracted, and the procedure prescribed need not be followed The Supreme Court held in [ (1995) 1 SCC 635 ] (Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. V/s. Devendra Kumar Jain and others) : "a plain reading of these two orders will go to show that the appointments were made purely on temporary basis and their services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or assiging any reason In the case of appointment on temporary basis a servant who is so appointed does not acquire any substantive right to the post, even though the post itself may be permanent and it is an implied term of such appointment that it may be terminable at any time and without notice. A temporary government servant does not become a permanent government servant unless he acquires that capacity by force of any rule or he is declared or appointed as a permanent servant. In the present case there is no rule under which the respondents may be deemed to have become permanent by force of such rule nor they were so declared by any subsequent order of the appellate-Company to have acquired that status On the contrary the respondents all along continued to be temporary and according to the terms of the order of appointment their services could be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons. In such a case it is not necessary to follow the formalities contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. In these facts and circumstances the High Court was not right in holding that the respondents were entitled for being heard before passing the said order of termination of their services and that the order of termination was bad in law on that account. " 30. In these facts and circumstances the High Court was not right in holding that the respondents were entitled for being heard before passing the said order of termination of their services and that the order of termination was bad in law on that account. " 30. At this stage I may notice some of the authorities cited at the Bar. It was first contended relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in jacob V/s. Kerala Water Authority [ air 1990 SC 2228 ] that some of the petitioners having worked for long periods, they should be regularised in service. as was ordered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. I have carefully considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the said authority, and 1 have come to the conclusion that the decision in that case rested on the special facts of the case, and the specific provisions in the relevant rules. The rules themselves provided for absorption of certain class of employees in the circumstances mentioned in rule 9 (a) (i) and (e) of the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, Consequently it was held by the Supreme Court that such of the employees who fulfilled the conditions laid down in the rules aforesaid must be given the benefit envisaged under the rules and absorbed in service. No such or similar rule has been shown to us which may benefit the petitioners. The aforesaid decision of the supreme Court came up for consideration by the Court in a subsequent decision, reported in [ air 1992 SC 2070 ] (Director Institute of Management development V/s. Pushpa Srivastava ). The Court referred to the aforesaid judgment and held that the judgment Jacobs case (supra) turned on the interpretation of the relevant rules, and distinguished the case on that ground holding that in that case with which the Court was concerned there was no such rule The appointment was purely ad hoc. and on a contractual basis for a limited period and, therefore, the respondents did not have a right to remain in the posts after the expiry of the period. Reliance placed upon the decision, reported in [air 1991 SC]2088 is also of no help to the petitioners. From the decision it appears that a special leave had been preferred against an interim order passed by the High court. Reliance placed upon the decision, reported in [air 1991 SC]2088 is also of no help to the petitioners. From the decision it appears that a special leave had been preferred against an interim order passed by the High court. The Supreme Court, however, passed certain directions and left it to the parties to move the High Court to dispose of the pending litigations in terms of the Supreme Court order. No principle of law has been laid down in that decision, and having regard to the special facts of that case, the Supreme court in the interest of consistency issued directions which were to govern all cases pending before the courts. 31. The petitioners relied heavily on the decision of the Supreme court, reported in [ air 1992 SC 2130 ]state of Haryana V/s. Piara Singh ). The Court cautioned the authorities against indiscriminate regularisation of temporary employees and observed that a scheme should be framed by the government before the employees are regularised. The Court observed : "the normal rule, of course, is reqular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration mav sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporery employees by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad /hoc/temporary employee. Secondly an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee ; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. An unqualified person ought to be appoioted only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and bis service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. " The aforesaid judgment also emphasises the fact that the regularisation may be permissible only in given circumstances, and temporary or ad hoc employees cannot be indiscriminately regularised. Temporary appointments may be necessitated on account of the exigencies of the administration, but the method employed should be consistent with the requirement of Article 16. Back-door entrants should not be regularised. Ad hoc temporary employees should be replaced without delay by regularly selected employees as early as possible What is important is the emphasis on the fact that those illegally appointed contrary to the constitutional mandate or law regulating the appointment should not be regularised. I shall refer to the other authorities on the subject later, but at this stage I may notice the observation of the supreme Court in Jandk Public Service Commission and other [1994 (2) SCC 63] where the Supreme Court after noticing the decision in Plata Singhs case observed : "in State of Haryana V/s. Piara Singh this Court noted that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad hoc temporary appointment may be made, In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary employee by regularly selected employees, as early as possible The temporary employees also would get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection but if he is not selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidates. Appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc or temporary employed ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by regularly selected employee The ad hoc appointment should not be a device to circumvent the rule of reservation. If a temporary or ad hoc employee continued for a firly long spel the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. It is to be remambered that in that case, the appointments are only to Class-Ill or Class-IV posts and the selection made was by subordinate selection committee. Therefore, this Court did not appear to have intended to lay down as a general rule that every category of ad hoc appointment, if the ad hoc appointee continued for long period, the rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularisation be made. . . . . . It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment bv notifying each years vacancies and for recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences It is settled law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It is open, as early as possible, to inform the vacancies existing or anticipated to the PSC for recruit-itment and that every eligible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided he satisfies the prescribed requisite qualifications Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of inviting application for requirement offending Articles 14 and 16. " 32. In Dharwar District P W D Literate Daily Wage Employees Association V/s. State of Karnataka and others [ air 1990 SC 883 ] the facts were quite different In that case it was pleaded that about 50000 workers had been employed in different Government establishment and though many of them had put in 16 to 20 years continuous service, they had not been regularised in their service, and were not being paid equal pay for equal work. Having regard to the permanent need of such employees, the Court directed the state Government to frame a scheme for their absorption in due course. Such a scheme framed by the Government approved with modifications by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid judgment really deals with the principle of equal pav for equal work, and having regard to the fact that large number of persons were involved and they had worked for 16 to 20 years the court considered that they should be regularised in accordance with the scheme to be framed by the Government. The regularisation scheme also envisaged their regularisation in due course and not at once, but the benefit of enhanced emolument was extended to all the workers. It is also not insignificant that the persons involved were engaged mostly against Class IV posts and the engagement was not on part time basis. In my view, in the matter of regularisation, part time lecturers cannot equate themselves with Class iii and Class IV employees, particularly when such employees have worked 16 to 20 years without break. In the instant case, we are concerned with part time lecturers who have been engaged to deliver lectures pending regular appointment and obviously, therefore, once the regular recruitment takes place, they are required to make way for the regular appointees. Their services may be terminated in accordance with the terms and condition of engagement. 33. Dr. S. N Jha also referred to four other decisions of the Supreme court, reported in [ 1993 (3) SCC 259 , 1993 (3) SCC 584 , 1993 (6) Judgments today 307] and [ air 1993 (SC) 1126 ]. I have found no principle has been iaid down in any of these judgments which may advance the case of the petitioners and the observations made therein are consistent with the view that I have taken. 34. Counsel for the state on the other hand, has relied upon the decisions, reported in [ air 1993 (SC) 115 ] and [ air 1992 (SC) 2070 ] to which I have referred earlier for the proposition that temporary appointees must make way when regular appointment takes place He has also referred to several decisions of this Court which have followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to each one of them. 35. 35. No authority of the Supreme Court has been cited before us for the proposition that even part time employees may be regularised in service against permanent posts. In Bhagwan Dass and others v State of Haryana and others [atr 1987 SC 2049] the Court was considering a case where the supervisors in the Education Department were appointed each time for a period of six months and reappointed after giving break of a day or two. The appointments were made under a scheme which was of temporary nature, but it was found that the nature of duties and functions discharged and the work done by them was similar to those discharged and done by the regularly employed persons. The Court held that in such a case having regard to the special facts, the principle of equal pay for equal work was attracted and it was immaterial as to whether they were temporarily or regularly appointed as long as the nature of duties and functions discharged by them and the work done was similar to those discharged by regularly recruited persons, the claim for regulamation was however, negatived. It was held ; ". . . . . . In our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the date of their initial appointment has no justification That however does not mean that the petitioners should be deprived of the legitimate benefits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to the one applicable to respondents 2 to 6 by treating time as employees who have continued from the date of initial appointment by disregarding the breaks which have been given on account of the peculiar nature of the Scheme. While, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from the inception they would be justified in claiming pay on the basis of the lenght of service computed from the date of their appointment depending on the length of service by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a limited purpose. . . . . . . " Similarly, in K. S P. College Stop Gap Lecturers Association V/s. State of karnataka[ air 1992 SC 677 ] the claim for regularisation of service of temporary teachers appointed due to exigency of service was negatived, but it was held that since they discharged similar nature of duties, they should be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arose. It was further held that the temporary teachers shall be paid the salary was admissible to teachers appointed against permanent posts. It was observed that a temporary or ad hoc employee may not have a claim to become permanent without facing selection or being absorbed in accordance with the rules but no discrimination can be made for same job on the basis of method of recruitment. It may, however, be observed that the appointments made were on ad hoc dasis, and not on part time basis. The case, reported in [air 1993 S. C. W.3229] related to part time lecturers Though it was initially contended by the appellants before the supreme Court that they were entitled to absorption and regularisation as lecturers, the Court was pleased to issue notice limited only to the question of payment according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post of regular lecturers. The direction was given by the Supreme Court after it was found that the appellants were not gainfully employed elsewhere and that the nature and amount of work done by them was equal to that of regular lecturers The Court directed that the appellants shall be paid according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed lecturers, the duties of which post they were discharging during the period their appointment as part time lecturers subsisted The aforesaid decision does not support the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. Morever. the observations in the case, reported in [ air 1993 SC 2482 ] (State of Punjab V/s. Gurdarshan Singh Grewal supports the contention of the State that a part time employee is cot a Government servant. 36. Morever. the observations in the case, reported in [ air 1993 SC 2482 ] (State of Punjab V/s. Gurdarshan Singh Grewal supports the contention of the State that a part time employee is cot a Government servant. 36. Reliance was also placed by the petitioners upon the judgment, reported in [air t991 SC 295j (S C. Putteswamy v Hon ble the Chiej Justice of Karnataka), and but as held by the Supreme Court in Jandk Public Service commissions case (supra) the order passed by the Supreme Court was in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, was not in the nature of a binding precedent. In the special facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court with a view to do complete justice between the parties gave direction, as contedned in that judgment. 37. Having regard to the principles of law well-settled, and the several decisions of the Supreme Court above referred, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners cannot claim regularisation of their services against permanent posts The petitioners were appointed on part time basis with a clear stipulation that their services may be terminated at any time, and that their engagemant shall come to an and when regular appointments were made against the post held by them. The engagement was necessitated by exigencies of service having regard ,to the existing wacancies and the delay entailed in making regular appointments. The petitioners were not appointed according to the rules which involved an upon advertisement on all India basis, selection by the Bihar Public Service commission followed by appointment by the State. They were, therefore, appointed de hors the rules and constitutional mandate. Moreover, they were not appointed as full time lecturers, but only as part time lecturers, They cannot claim regularisation against the posts to which they were never appointed. The parties are agreed that their appointment as part time lecturer is not illegal and, therefore, there can be no question of curing any irregularity. They can become full time lecturers on regular basis only after they are selected for appointment in accordance with law The State government has informed the Court that the process of regular recruitment has already commenced and, therefore, it will be open to the petitioners to compete at the open competition test held for the purpose by filling up regular vacancies. Following several decisions of the Supreme Court, in J and K Public Service commissions case (supra) it has now been settled oncs for all that a person appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis cannot be regularised unless he is appointed or absorbed in accordance with the rules. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the prayer of the petitioners for regularisation must be negatived. 38. So far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, the averment in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that part time lecturers engaged 2 classes in a month, whereas full time lecturers engaged 22 classes in a week has not been controverted. It cannot, therefore, be said that the quantum of work load shouldered by the part time lecturers is the same as that shouldered by full time lecturers. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim equal pay when their work is not equal to that of regularly recruited full time lecturers. 39. Having noticed the facts of the case, I am tempted to quote from the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in [ air 1992 SC 677 ], The court observed : "ad hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations are comparatively recent innovations to the service jurisprudence. They are individual problem to begin with, become a family problem with passage of time and with human problem in court of law, it is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in society with little or no approach even though better qualified, mpre meritorious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in government or semi-Government department or State financed institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any extraneous reason ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. Or the rules or circulars issued by the department itself empower the authority to do so as a stop-gap arrangement. The former is an abase of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuins emergency measure the courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence latter gives rise to equities which have bothered courts every now and then. . . . The former is an abase of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuins emergency measure the courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence latter gives rise to equities which have bothered courts every now and then. . . . . . " 40. In the instant case I have noticed that despite the Governments clear direction to appoint only those persons on part time basis, who were otherwise gainfully employed elsewhere, the eppointing authorities observed the direction in its breach. I have also considered the materials on record which disclose that not many candidates offered themselves for appointment. The notices regarding vacancies were not given wide publicity and, therefore, at times only as many candidates offered themselves as there were vacant posts and sometimes their number was even less than the number of vacancies that existed. All these create an impression that the appointment of part time lecturers was not done in the manner in which it should have been done, and the appointing authorities acted with a view to confer favours. One cannot also site of the fact that the lecturers appointed in Government Polytechnics shoulder the heavy and onerous responsibility of training up technicians of future, who will guide the countrys progress towards prosperity The need of the hour, therefore, is not mere appointment of qualified teachers. but the appointment of the best available qualified talent This can be done only by open advertisement and selection by an impartial body, more particularly in the State of Bihar where the system of education has completely crumbled, and the process of selection has been reduced to a force Having regard to the larger public interest it would not be proper to confer legal sanctity on actions which do not appear to be above board. If that is done, it would only ensure the entry of back door entrants into the Government Polytechnics. At the same time it would not be fair to permit the State to continue its apathetic attitude towards the educational institutions. Public interest demands that the best talents available in the country should be available to the Government Polytechnics and, therefore, short-cut metchods and stop-gap arrangements must be brought into an and, since they have continued too long. At the same time it would not be fair to permit the State to continue its apathetic attitude towards the educational institutions. Public interest demands that the best talents available in the country should be available to the Government Polytechnics and, therefore, short-cut metchods and stop-gap arrangements must be brought into an and, since they have continued too long. I, therefore direct the respondents to immediately take steps to fill up the sanctioned posts, which are lying vacant and aeainst which no regular appointments have been made within a period of six months from today. Since the Government Pleader informed us that the State has already commenced the process to fill up these vacancies, the period of six months is more than sufficient to complete the process, and this Court should not be bothered again for extension of time to complete the process. 41. In the result, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above directions. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.