Per Aftab Alam, ACJ: 1. The State Government has come in appeal against the judgment and order, dated 16.04.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge, disposing of a large batch of writ petitions with a number of directions. Those writ petitions were filed by `Contract Lecturers (649 in number) seeking directions from the court to the concerned authorities not to discontinue their services at the end of the contract period and, further, to regularize them in service and to give them the same pay scale and other benefits as admissible to regular Lecturers. 2. Before proceeding further it will be useful to say a few words about `Contract Lecturers. As the name suggests, `Contract Lecturers are engaged by the State Government every year on contract basis to do the teaching work in different subjects in different graduate-level Colleges in the State. In this State the academic session (or it would be more accurate, perhaps, to say the classes of the first year of the three years Degree Course) commences from March 15 or (in case of very inclement weather in some years) from April 1. The session comes to end on 31 December. Before the beginning of the session every year, the State Government takes steps for engagement of Lecturers on contract basis for teaching different subjects in different colleges till the end of the session. An advertisement is issued inviting applications and selections are made without subjecting the candidates to any written test or oral interview etc. The mode of selection, as stated in the advertisement, is as follows: "The criteria for preparation of merit list will be as under: - i. For academic merit 10 marks ii. For additional qualification of M.Phil. 01 Addl. mark iii. For additional qualification of Ph.D. 02 Addl. marks iv. Teaching experience of Govt. college/ University (One academic session of not less than six months). 01 Addl. mark. Note: As per SRO No: 301 of 2006 dated; 20.09.2006 NET/SLET (National Eligibility Test/State Level Eligibility Test) shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment of lecturer for those with post-graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph. D degree in the concerned subject is exempted from NET/SLET for Post-graduate level and undergraduate level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET/SLET for Under-graduate level teaching only." 3. However, the candidates having Ph. D degree in the concerned subject is exempted from NET/SLET for Post-graduate level and undergraduate level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET/SLET for Under-graduate level teaching only." 3. A Post-graduate degree in the subject concerned with at least 55% marks is the minimum qualification. In case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories the eligibility criterion is lowered down by 5%. 4. The selected candidates are paid a fixed sum of Rs. 8000.00 per month. In the advertisement it is clearly stated that the engagement is a purely academic arrangement; it would be for a period of ten months or till the college is closed for winter vacation whichever might happen earlier. It is further indicated that in case of candidates engaged against clear vacancies (that is to say, vacancies against sanctioned posts) the academic, arrangement would be deemed to terminate immediately on the appointment of the regular candidates or if the posts are filled up by transfer. 5. It is, thus, to be seen that in terms of the arrangement the engagement is made for a period not exceeding ten months. At the end of the term the engagement comes to an end and for the next year/session every candidate is obliged to make fresh applications and pass through the selection process on the basis of the above quoted criteria. 6. A large number of the writ petitioners had worked under this arrangement for several years without any security of service, annual increments or other benefits and it was in those circumstances that they came to this Court seeking the reliefs as stated above. 7. The Writ court examined the arrangement under which Lecturers were engaged year after year for the past several years. It roundly criticized the State Government for following a practice that it called `disastrous and expressed its displeasure observing as follows: "As a matter of fact one finds it quite difficult to understand as to why the respondent department has chosen to opt for this disastrous method. No plausible reason, whatever has (at) all been projected for adopting it despite lengthy arguments, perhaps, simply because there can be none. " (emphasis added) 8. The Writ Court then formulated three issues that according to it, arose from the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised at the Bar. No plausible reason, whatever has (at) all been projected for adopting it despite lengthy arguments, perhaps, simply because there can be none. " (emphasis added) 8. The Writ Court then formulated three issues that according to it, arose from the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised at the Bar. The first issue related to the service status of the writ petitioners as contractual appointees and their consequential rights. The other two issues framed by the Court were as follows: - "Secondly, whether respondents are in law entitled to disband the batches of contractual appointees after every academic session only to be replaced by another set of contractual; and thirdly, as to what relief in given circumstances of the matter are petitioners entitled to, if any." (emphasis added) 9. It then proceeded to consider the claim of the writ petitioners for regularization of service in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Having considered the claim of the writ petitioners the Writ Court came to find and hold that it was not legally permissible to give any direction for their regularization in service. In this regard it observed as follows: "that being the position the service status of petitioners gets intrinsically defined by the terms of their service contract according to which despite all the ambitious/claims of consideration, the petitioners perhaps do not have a vested right to claim absorption or continuation in the posts against which they are working." It further observed: - "In view of what has appeared hereinabove, with completion of their term of contract the tenure of their contractual service comes to an end resultant whereupon particularly in view of the above quoted observations of the Apex Court at paras 4, 12, 43 and 44, they do not appear to have a vested actionable right to seek absorption against the posts they are working upon or, continuation therein independent of a regular selection process, simply because that would be against the mandate of constitutional principles, laid down as quoted above. Viewed thus, the petitioners ordinarily would not be entitled to the relief prayed for. Judgments quoted to contend the contrary cant be relied upon in terms of the dictum of Honble Apex Court as para 54 of the quoted judgment." 10. Viewed thus, the petitioners ordinarily would not be entitled to the relief prayed for. Judgments quoted to contend the contrary cant be relied upon in terms of the dictum of Honble Apex Court as para 54 of the quoted judgment." 10. Having thus held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to the relief of regularization in service, the Writ Court proceeded to examine the reliefs that could be given to them in the facts and circumstances of the case and finally gave the following directions:- "a. The respondent/Government and its instrumentalities shall initiate the process for regular selection for appointment of eligible candidates to the permanent and sanctioned available posts including those presently held by petitioners on contractual basis and conclude the same expeditiously, in any case within a period of six months from now so that candidates appointed on regular basis are in position by the next academic session, and till that is done allow the present arrangements to continue in the academic interest of the students. b. In the selection process as aforesaid petitioners shall be provided equal opportunity to compete, subject to their individual eligibility in accordance with, prescribed criterion. Giving additional weightage to them for each academic year for which have gained teaching experience while engaged on contract, may be positively considered alongwith relaxation of age bar in case of those petitioners, who were within prescribed age when they were first joined the contractual service in respondent/department. c. The petitioners shall also be entitled to claim payment of their pay/remuneration prospectively at per with those who are performing similar work in nature and quantum as they do, which would be considered by respondents in accordance with the principle of "equal pay for equal work". That shall, however, not entitle petitioners to claim any right of permanence on basis of such party whether claimed or accorded. d. Against other vacancies in teaching faculty of college education, respondent-department shall be at liberty to fill them up in any lawful manner they chose subject of course to their fulfillment on regular basis as above, and without any prejudice to the petitioners. e. Parties shall be at liberty to seek any clarification regarding above directions if required form this court." 11. The State Government has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of the Writ Court. 12. Mr. e. Parties shall be at liberty to seek any clarification regarding above directions if required form this court." 11. The State Government has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of the Writ Court. 12. Mr. Jenangir Iqbal, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State presented its case before the Court quite ably. Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned directions, cumulatively, the Writ Court practically gave to the writ petitioners what it held they were not entitled to in the earlier part of the judgment. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the appellants had no objection to taking steps to fill up all the sanctioned vacancies of Lecturers in a regular manner but the second part of the direction at Serial no. `a that required the writ petitioners to continue till the vacancies were filled up on a regular basis was contrary to the very concept of contract appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that the direction at Serial `b amounted to amending the statutory rules of recruitment. He pointed out that the States Constitution and the relevant laws entrusted the task of making selection for recruitment as Lecturers to the State Public Service Commission. The Commission was obliged to make selection of the eligible candidates following certain statutory, rules. The Writ Court was, therefore, in error to give directions that were quite inconsistent with the rules, moreso as the directions were issued in a proceeding to which the Commission was not even a party. 13. As regards the direction at Serial `c, Mr. Jehangir submitted that it was based on the principle of `equal pay for equal work that had no application in case of contract appointments. Learned counsel submitted that the direction was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh and others, (2006) 9 SCC 321, paragraphs 19 to 22. 14. The other two directions at serials `d and `e are not very material and the State may not have any objection to that. 15. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the Writ Court was misled into passing the judgment and giving the impugned directions as a result of proceeding on two basically incorrect premises. 16. 14. The other two directions at serials `d and `e are not very material and the State may not have any objection to that. 15. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the Writ Court was misled into passing the judgment and giving the impugned directions as a result of proceeding on two basically incorrect premises. 16. The Writ Court took the view that the arrangement under which Lecturers were appointed on contract basis was arbitrary and there was no plausible reason for the State to follow the arrangement and, further, that the batch of contract Lecturers engaged in a given year was disbanded only to be replaced by another set of contract appointees. Learned counsel submitted that both the assumptions were incorrect and unfounded. 17. Mr. Jehangir submitted that engagement of Lecturers in large numbers on contract basis was the Governments compulsion and the reasons for it were clearly stated in the objection filed before the Writ Court but those reasons got overlooked. Learned counsel submitted that the arrangement under which Lecturers were engaged on annual contracts was the result of several factors some of which were beyond the control of the State Government. He enumerated the three main factors in this regard as follows:- I. Non-availability of candidates (state subjects) in sufficient number, fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down by the University Grants Commission for regular appointment as lecturers against vacancies in sanctioned posts. II. The rapid and great expansion of degree level education in the State; and III. The Government policy concerning admission of students in degree level courses. 18. Learned counsel submitted it was indeed true that there were a large number of vacancies in sanctioned posts of Lecturers in different colleges in different subjects but it would be wrong to hold the Government responsible for it. He referred to paragraph 7 of the States reply filed before the Writ court where it is stated as follows: - "...It is essential to state here that the government have already referred 203, 98, 527 vacancies of lecturer for Govt. Degree colleges to the public service commission for making selection of suitable candidates on substantive basis, in accordance with the recruitment rules vide communication bearing Nos. Edu.-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/03 dated 27/08/2003, No. EDU-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/05 dated 15/07/2005 AND NO. EDU-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/06 dated 11/08/2006 and pursuant to the requisitions dated 27/08/2003, 55 candidates stand selected/appointed against the said post..." 19. Degree colleges to the public service commission for making selection of suitable candidates on substantive basis, in accordance with the recruitment rules vide communication bearing Nos. Edu.-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/03 dated 27/08/2003, No. EDU-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/05 dated 15/07/2005 AND NO. EDU-COLLEGE/APPT/LECT/06 dated 11/08/2006 and pursuant to the requisitions dated 27/08/2003, 55 candidates stand selected/appointed against the said post..." 19. In course of hearing of the appeals, he also filed an affidavit to place before the Court the upto date position in this regard. In the affidavit it is stated that the Department of Higher Education had so far received from the Commission 242 selections including the 55 that was already mentioned in the earlier statement made before the Court. Out of the 242 recommended candidates, 98 were issued appointment orders and the appointment of the remaining selected candidates was in process. The position that emerges thus is that during the past four years the State Government made three requisitions to the Commission for filling up 828 vacancies in the sanctioned posts of Lecturers. The Commission was able to recommend only4 242 names and 586 vacancies thus remain still unfilled up. 20. Mr. Jehangir further submitted that in the past years there has been a great expansion of degree-level education in this State and it is well known that the Government had set up a number of degree-level Colleges in different places in the State, including some backward areas. 21. Coupled with the above, the Government policy in higher education permitted any student passing the +2 examination in whatever grades to take admission in the college of his/her choice to pursue degree-level course in any subjects of his/her choice. It was very important to note that unlike other states in this Country the Government Colleges in the State of J&K did not have any fixed intake capacity of students, and therefore, there was no question of any cut off marks for admission into a Government degree college in this State. Any student passing the +2 examination with whatever percentage of marks was free to apply for admission in any college of his/her choice and the college was obliged to admit him/her to the course. [Mr. Jehangir clarified that in recent years some restrictions were imposed only on regional basis,] Mr. Any student passing the +2 examination with whatever percentage of marks was free to apply for admission in any college of his/her choice and the college was obliged to admit him/her to the course. [Mr. Jehangir clarified that in recent years some restrictions were imposed only on regional basis,] Mr. Jehangir submitted that as a result of this policy the students here were totally free from any worry as to getting admission into colleges that was such a dreadful source of stress and tension for the students in the other parts of the country. But it also gave rise to some administrative problems since the number of students who would pursue the degree-level course in any subject in a college could not be known before the admissions were closed and consequently the number of teachers required in any subject in a college in a given year could also Be determined only after the admissions. This situation required7 the State Government to create a sort of pool of Lecturers from which they were sent to different colleges as per the requirement. In order to illustrate the point, learned counsel produced before the Court a communication dated 07.09.2006 from the Higher Education Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir to the Principal, Government College for Women, M.A. Road, Srinagar. By this letter, approval was given for posting of 100 contract Lecturers in 24 different subjects in the college for the session 2006-07. From the letter it appears that the number, of students in English for that session was 6272 and the number of Lecturers required was 21, There were 5 regular Lecturers in the College and 13 posts of regular Lecturers were vacant. In addition to the 13 vacancies, 3 more Lecturers were required to complete the required number of 21. Hence 16 contract Lecturers in English were posted there for the session 2006-07. In Bio-Chemistry, the number of students was 190. The number of Lecturers required was 3. There was only one regular Lecturer and one post of regular Lecturer was vacant. Thus, in order to complete the required number of three, two contract Lecturers in Bio-Chemistry were posted in the College. 22. Mr. Jehangir submitted that as a result of more and more students joining the degree level course the requirement of contract Lecturers was also on the increase. Thus, in order to complete the required number of three, two contract Lecturers in Bio-Chemistry were posted in the College. 22. Mr. Jehangir submitted that as a result of more and more students joining the degree level course the requirement of contract Lecturers was also on the increase. Last year the number of contract Lecturers was between 800-900 but for the current year the number of contract Lecturers was 1462. In the coming year the number was likely to go still higher. 23. Learned counsel submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was quite unjust to accuse the State Government of following the arrangement of contract Lecturers arbitrarily and for no reasonable cause. 24. He next submitted that it was equally incorrect to assume that the batch of contract Lecturers engaged for a year was disbanded with a view to engage another set for the following year. The fact of the matter was that most of the candidates engaged for one year were re-engaged for the following year. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the criteria for selection gave credit points both for past service and for additional qualifications , thus evenly balancing past experience with acquisition of additional qualifications. He submitted that in case the engagement made for a year was given permanence or a longer duration of five or three years it would deny opportunity of recruitment to those who acquired the basic eligibility or even the higher qualifications of M. Phil or Ph. D in later years. Learned counsel submitted that the Writ Court had thus viewed the issues quite erroneously and the directions given by it would lead to a situation where many people who became eligible or acquired higher qualifications in later years would be denied the opportunity of being considered for engagement. 25. Mr. Qayoom, counsel appearing for the private contesting respondents - writ petitioners, on the other hand stoutly defended the judgment coming under appeal and the directions given by the Writ Court. Mr. Qayoom submitted that the directions by which the State Government felt so much aggrieved were all valid, legal and in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Qayoom, counsel appearing for the private contesting respondents - writ petitioners, on the other hand stoutly defended the judgment coming under appeal and the directions given by the Writ Court. Mr. Qayoom submitted that the directions by which the State Government felt so much aggrieved were all valid, legal and in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court had strongly and repeatedly deprecated the practice of appointment of teachers on adhoc basis at the commencement of the year and terminating their services at its end and thus denying them salary for the vacation period. He referred to the decisions in Rattanlal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 478 said Sri Rabinarayan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1286. 26. Mr. Qayoom submitted that the directions of the Writ Court to allow the contract Lecturers to continue till the vacancies were filled up on a regular basis and to give them relaxation of age for being considered for regular appointment was fully in accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Mamtarani Sahoo and another, AIR 1999 SC 3370, paragraph 12. In this regard he also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey v. Dr. S. R. Mahrotra and others, AIR 1998 SC 1153. 27. Mr. Qayoom further submitted that the direction to pay to the contract Lecturers salary at par with the regular Lecturers on the principle of `equal pay for equal work for the period they were continued in service till the vacancies were filled up on a regular basis was also fully supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 677 and Chandigarh Administration and others v. Mrs. Rajni Vali and others, AIR 2000 SC 634. 28. Mr. Qayoom also referred to the Jammu and Kashmir Contractual Appointment Rules 2003 framed under SRO no. 255 dated 05.08.2003 and submitted that in light of Government order no. 10/8-GAD of 2003 dated 05.08.2003 and Government order no. 168-GAD of 2003 dated 09.02.2004 there was no provision to engage College Lecturers on contract basis after 05.08.2003. 29. In reply Mr. Jehangir submitted that the Rules and the Government orders referred by Mr. 255 dated 05.08.2003 and submitted that in light of Government order no. 10/8-GAD of 2003 dated 05.08.2003 and Government order no. 168-GAD of 2003 dated 09.02.2004 there was no provision to engage College Lecturers on contract basis after 05.08.2003. 29. In reply Mr. Jehangir submitted that the Rules and the Government orders referred by Mr. Qayoom did not bar the engagement of Lecturers on contract basis and those had relevance to this case. He further pointed out that Mr. Qayooms submission with reference to the Rules and the Government orders was exactly opposite to the pleadings of the respondents-writ petitioners vide para 4 of the objection filed in LPA no. 115/2007. Learned counsel further submitted that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Qayoom were rendered in different sets of facts and legal provisions and those had no application to the case in hand. In the present case, there were no laches on the part of the State Government in trying to fill up the vacancies on sanctioned posts but despite repeated requisitions the Commission was unable to recommend the names of suitable candidates because of their non-availability in the State. Moreover, the exponential growth in the number of students in degree courses required additional Lecturers and the engagement of additional Lecturers was to be made giving due regard to past experience and acquisition of additional qualifications in later years. All these considerations obliged the State Government to evolve the arrangement which was quite reasonable and the best possible in the prevailing facts and circumstances. 30. Learned counsel submitted that the engagements, though on contract basis, were preceded by open advertisements. The candidates were clearly informed about the nature of the engagement and all eligible candidates were subjected to a fair selection following a reasonable criteria. The arrangement, therefore, could not be said to be illegal, invalid or unreasonable. In support of the submission he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in State of J&K v. Sunil Gupta and others, (2003) 2 SLJ 530. He further submitted that another case on the same set of facts was earlier decided by a Bench of this Court in Mufti Imtiaz v. State of J&K and others, (2003) 1 SLJ 203 and the contract Lecturer was denied the relief as claimed by the present writ petitioners. He further submitted that another case on the same set of facts was earlier decided by a Bench of this Court in Mufti Imtiaz v. State of J&K and others, (2003) 1 SLJ 203 and the contract Lecturer was denied the relief as claimed by the present writ petitioners. The judgment coming under appeal was farther bad as it was in conflict with an earlier Division Bench decision of the Court. In yet another case in Dr. Ram Pal Sharma and others v. State of J&K and others, 2006 (1) SLJ, a learned Single Judge had taken the same view that a person appointed on contract basis had no right to seek continuation in service after expiry of the period of contract even if the order of contract or contractual appointment envisaged that appointment would continue till the vacancy was filled up on a regular basis. 31. Mr. Jehangir submitted that by now it was well settled that an appointment made on contract basis was governed by the terms of the contract and its period could not be extended by any other consideration or by an order of the Court. In support of this submission he relied upon the decisions in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; Kalpataru Vidya samasthe v. S. B. Gupta, (2005) 7 SCC 524, paragraph 7; Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. v. Digambara Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 262, para 24 and Union of India v. Brahma Dutt Tripathi, AIR 2006 SC 3244, paragraphs 8 and 21. 32. On a careful consideration of the materials on record and the rival contentions and the decisions cited by the two sides I find considerable force in the submissions made by the State counsel. I find that, in the circumstances, as pointed out by the State Counsel, the arrangement evolved by the State Government under which Lecturers are engaged on annual contract basis cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unjustified and I am unable to uphold the second part of the directions at serial `a as well as the directions at serials `b and `c as contained in the judgment coming under appeal. 33. This is, however, not the end of the matter. 33. This is, however, not the end of the matter. To hold that system under which degree-college Lecturers are engaged on annual contract basis is the governments compulsion under the given circumstances is not to say that the terms of their engagement is equally reasonable, fair and just. As noted above, contract Lecturers are engaged for a period not exceeding ten months in a year and they are paid a fixed amount of Rs. 8000.00 per month. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the scale of regular Lecturer was Rs. 8000-275-13500 and, hence the Lecturers engaged on contract were given the lowest grade of the scale. He also submitted that a regular Lecturer was appointed after being subjected to a regular selection process by the Public Service Commission and the mode of selection of the contract Lecturers was not comparable to those of the regular Lecturers. The contract Lecturer, therefore, could not claim the same salary or other facilities as a regular Lecturer. . The submission can only be accepted to an extent. It is true that the mode of selection for engagement on contract basis is not comparable to the selection process of regular Lecturers, but it is undeniable that the contract Lecturers also do the same kind of teaching work and engage the same number of classes as Lecturers. However, what they get by way of remuneration appears to be unconscionably low when compared to the emoluments and the other facilities admissible to regular Lecturers. 34. A regular Lecturer has the security of service. The tenure of a contract Lecturer comes to end on the expiry of the academic session. A regular Lecturer on being appointed gets a monthly salary of Rs. 18420.00 (basic pay Rs. 8000.00 + 50% of the basic = 4000.00 + DA 4200 + HRA 1800 + MA 300 + CCA 120). A regular Lecturer gets earned leave (encashable at the time of superannuation. He gets terminal benefits e.g., gratuity, pension, provident fund and leave encashment of 300 days. None of these is available to a contract Lecturer. Thus seen the terms on which contract Lecturers are employed appear to be quite exploitative, discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. 35. A regular Lecturer gets earned leave (encashable at the time of superannuation. He gets terminal benefits e.g., gratuity, pension, provident fund and leave encashment of 300 days. None of these is available to a contract Lecturer. Thus seen the terms on which contract Lecturers are employed appear to be quite exploitative, discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. 35. The State counsel spoke eloquently about the expansion of degree-level education in the State and the very positive and healthy Government policy that allowed a student passing +2 with whatever percentage of marks to get admission in any college of his choice. If the Government takes pride in its policy in higher education it should not ignore the role of the contract Lecturers in expansion of the degree-level education in the State. The contract Lecturers must also get due recognition and return for the work rendered by them in the educational development of the State. 36. Mr. Jehangir submitted that the contract Lecturers were given the lowest grade in the scale of regular Lecturers but on that basis too the amount of Rs. 8000.00 per month appears to be quite unjustifiable and wrong. It is true that the scale of Lecturer was fixed at Rs. 8000-275-13500 but later on 50% of the basic pay was merged with the pay scale and, as a result, the lowest grade would now be Rs. 12,000.00. Hence, on the Governments own reasoning the contract Lecturers should be paid a monthly salary of not less than Rs. 12,000.00. It is accordingly directed that the contract Lecturers must be paid salary @ not less than Rs. 12,000.00 per month and for full year. The contract Lecturers would also be entitled to increments on the basis of past experience @ Rs. 275.00 per year. For example, a candidate engaged for the next session who had previous experience of past four years would get a salary for the whole year at a rate not less than Rs. 13,100.00 per month. 37. While taking steps to fill up the vacancies on a regular basis as per the direction of the Writ Court (vide the first part of the direction at serial no. `a), the State Government may consider to give relaxation of age to contract Lecturers for the number of years they actually worked on contract basis. 38. 13,100.00 per month. 37. While taking steps to fill up the vacancies on a regular basis as per the direction of the Writ Court (vide the first part of the direction at serial no. `a), the State Government may consider to give relaxation of age to contract Lecturers for the number of years they actually worked on contract basis. 38. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the directions of the Writ Court, apart from the direction requiring the State Government to take expeditious steps to fill up all vacancies in the sanctioned posts of Lecturers, are substituted by the directions given above. There will be no order as to costs.