ORDER 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned Advocate for opposite party No.2. Though notice was issued to opposite party No.1, but none appears when the matter is taken up. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has passed the degree course in Architecture in first class. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.07.2009 for the posts of lecturer in Architecture, issued by the Principal, College of Engineering and Technology (in short "CET"), opposite party No.1 he appeared at the interview. In the said interview he was selected. On 29.08.2009 vide Annexure-2, opposite party No.1 issued an office order appointing the petitioner as a lecturer in Architecture on contractual basis. On 8.07.2010, opposite party No. 2 issued an office order appointing the petitioner with consolidated remuneration w.e.f. 1.07.2010 to 31.12.2010 or till the post was filled up by the Biju Patnaik University and Technology (in short "BPUT"), opposite party No.1 in regular manner, whichever is earlier. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was extended by orders dated 8.07.2010, 24.01.2011, 26.07.2011, 21.01.2012 and 4.04.2012 vide Annexures-3 series. The further case of the petitioner is that instead of filling up the post by regular appointment as per the condition in the appointment order, an advertisement for the second time was issued on 26.05.2012 vide Annexure-4 for the same posts with same condition. The petitioner applied for the same and was selected by the select committee. Thereafter he was appointed for the current semester, 2012 up to 31.12.2012 or till filling up the posts by regular appointment as per letter dated 26.07.2012 vide Annexure-5. It is further stated that the petitioner had continuously and satisfactorily worked as a lecturer for three and half years. Instead of filling up the posts by regular appointment, a third advertisement was issued for the same posts on 19.12.2012 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner again applied for the same. He further stated that the third advertisement was issued to accommodate some candidates on extraneous consideration and the same is mala fide. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party No.2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner again applied for the same. He further stated that the third advertisement was issued to accommodate some candidates on extraneous consideration and the same is mala fide. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party No.2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The case of opposite party No.2 is that the College of Engineering and Technology is a constituent college of the Biju Patnaik University and Technology (BPUT, in short) and the same is under the administrative control of the University. The appointment of regular and temporary faculty is not under the purview of the College but under the University. The further case of the opposite party No.2 is that the engagement of contractual teacher is meant to manage the teaching load and not against any sanctioned posts of the College. The salary of the contractual teacher is drawn from the Self Sustaining Programme and not against any vacant sanctioned post of the college. The advertisement for engagement of contractual teachers is made from time to time. The academic session and teaching experience are compared amongst the continuing contractual teacher with the newcomers in order to provide better teaching facility to the students. The further case of opposite party No.2 is that the selection of contractual teachers are made by the selection committee pursuant to an open advertisement, whereafter the merit list is approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University before issuance of engagement order in favour of the selectee. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Bachelor in Architecture, who appeared in the interview pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, but was not selected. The candidates selected in the said interview possess Master Degree in Architecture and hence better qualified than the petitioner. Furthermore, it is stated that the petitioner's contractual service with the College of Engineering and Technology expired on 31.12.2012 and he is not continuing in service. The petitioner being aware of the nature of selection took a calculated chance, participated in the selection process and is therefore estopped from challenging the said selection process. 5. In course of hearing Mr. Dora, learned senior counsel submits that a contractual employee should not be replaced by another contractual employee, he should be replaced only by a regular selected employee. 6. To buttress his submission Mr. 5. In course of hearing Mr. Dora, learned senior counsel submits that a contractual employee should not be replaced by another contractual employee, he should be replaced only by a regular selected employee. 6. To buttress his submission Mr. Dora cited a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 2130 . 7. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the engagement of contractual teacher is meant to manage the teaching load and not against any sanctioned posts. Furthermore, the appointment of temporary and irregularly faculty does not come under the purview of the College but under the University. He further submits that pursuant to the advertisement vide annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner appeared in the interview, but he was not selected. The candidates selected in the said interview possess Master Degree in Architecture and are better qualified than the petitioner. Referring to Clause 15(2) of the First Statutes 2006 of Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Orissa, Mr. Udgata submits that the Vice-Chancellor of the University may, subject to the ultimate approval of the Board, make ad hoc appointments for a period not exceeding six months in urgent cases and all such appointments shall be reported forthwith to the Board, and in case the Board does not approve of the said appointments, such appointments shall stand terminated with effect from the date of decision of the Board. 8. On the rival submissions of the parties, really one point arises for consideration, as to whether a contractual employee can be replaced by another contractual employee. 9. An identical question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of state of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh (supra). In paragraph-10 of the said decision, their Lordships held as follows: "10. xx xx The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization.... Their Lordships in paragraph-25, further held as follows: "25. xx xx The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may 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/temporary 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." (emphasis is ours) 10. In the instant case as it evident from the materials on record, the petitioner continued for three and half years on contractual basis. The appointment letters issued from the time to time show that, he was engaged as a lecturer on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration for a particular period or till the post would be filled up by the BPUT in regular manner, whichever is earlier. Instead of filling up the post by holding a regular interview, the University issued advertisement from time to time and conducted interview. Further, the petitioner was selected, however, in the last interview he could not be selected. Instead of filling up the post by holding a regular interview, the University issued advertisement from time to time and conducted interview. Further, the petitioner was selected, however, in the last interview he could not be selected. 11. The very fact that the petitioner continued for three and half years in the post of lecturer in Architecture, presupposes that there is need and warrant of regular post. BPUT which is an instrumentality of the State, is an ideal employer. It cannot take advantage of the helplessness and misery of the unemployed persons. The University cannot hold interview to replace the contractual lecturers by another set of contractual lecturers. 12. On taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the advertisement dated 18.12.2012 issued by opposite party No. 2 published in daily "The Samaj" dated 19.12.2012 vide Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed, which we hereby do so. As a sequel all consequential action taken by the BPUT pursuant to the said advertisement also stands quashed. It is open to the University to issue a fresh advertisement for filling up the post of lecturer in Architecture in regular vacancy. In the event the University decides to fill up the post of lecturer in Architecture, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law. 13. The Writ application is allowed. 14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. Application allowed.