JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent Shri W.U. Ahmad as well as learned Standing counsel. Perused the records. 2. Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner on account of hiring and firing policy adopted by the respondent University to engage teachers for MBA course under self-financing scheme under the grant of contractual assignment. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2003 and 2006 on contractual basis for the period of eleven month to impart education to the students of the respondent University (Institute of Business Studies) on fixed salary. They have been continuing in service from the very inception of Establishment though it was for eleven month. However, respondent took a decision to dispense with the services of petitioners and make a fresh recruitment for the respective courses. Feeling aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent University, the petitioners had approached this Court. 3. Shri W.U. Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the action of the respondent University submits that no right accrues to the appointees who were appointed on contract basis. He further submits that under self-financing course teachers are engaged keeping in view the strength of the student. 4. It is admitted fact between the parties that petitioners have been engaged by the University in the year 2003 and 2006 respectively. They have been continuing in service. No material has been brought on record by the respondent University with regard to any misconduct or inefficiency of petitioner in discharging their obligation. Petitioners have been discharging duty since several years in respondents University under self-financing scheme. What prompted the respondents to disengage the petitioners is not borne out from the record. However, Shri W.U. Ahmad asserted that respondent University has got right to choose teachers since the nature of job is contractual. It is not disputed that there is no Service Rules or Regulation governing the service condition but fact remains that respondent University is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has got no right to act arbitrarily or in an unfair manner. University has got right to engage teachers itself under self-financing course by its choice but teachers working in the University since several years without any complaint, ordinarily their services may be renewed. It has got no right to act arbitrarily or in an unfair manner. University has got right to engage teachers itself under self-financing course by its choice but teachers working in the University since several years without any complaint, ordinarily their services may be renewed. How the University may be permitted to engage new teachers every year for Scheme? When respective course was started in the institutions of the University and constitues then reason for fresh recruitment is not borne out from the records. It is always expected that the University shall act in a just and fair manner and not abuse their power in the matter of engagement and appointment when right to livelihood is fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Long back in the case of Rattan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 43 , Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the hiring and firing policy in the colleges and University. In a recent judgment decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 20.2.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of 2004, Balmer Lawrie and company Ltd. and others v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and others, similar plea was raised. It was stated that the appellant before the Apex Court was the employee of subsidiary company and not the Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. Accordingly, apart from a plea that the appellant before Hon’ble Supreme Court was not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India the other plea was raised that being contractual appointment it was not open for the appellant to raise grievances on account of termination of services. 6. Their Lordship held that the subsidiary company falling under the deep and pervasive control of the appellant shall not be different entity and shall be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that rules governing the employment conferring power with regard to hiring and firing is not justifiable and cannot be enforced. After discussing catena of judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that any rule, regulation or circular issued/framed in contravention of the constitutional mandate cannot be enforced. Power conferring on the authority to engage new incumbent at the specified interval is not sustainable. After discussing catena of judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that any rule, regulation or circular issued/framed in contravention of the constitutional mandate cannot be enforced. Power conferring on the authority to engage new incumbent at the specified interval is not sustainable. Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed to pay salary to the extent of 60 per cent admissible under Rule. Relevant portion from the judgment of Balmer Lawrie (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: “Undoubtedly, the High Court has not dealt with the issue on merits with respect to the termination of the services of the respondents herein. However, considering the fact that such termination took place several decades ago, and litigation in respect of the same remained pending not only before the High Court, but also before this Court, it is desirable that the dispute come to quietus. Therefore, we have dealt with the case on merits. In keeping with this, we cannot approved the “hire and fire” policy adopted by the appellant company, and the terms and conditions incorporated in the Manual of Officers in 1976, cannot be held to be justifiable, and the same being arbitrary, cannot be enforced.” 7. In the present case, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the University that Institute of Business is a separate entity seems to be misconceived argument. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent University that Institute of Business Management is a part and parcel of University and certain autonomy has been given to it. It is the University which makes appointment on the contractual basis. Accordingly, it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 is not a State within a meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled proposition of law that State or its authorities, in the present case university (authorities), are supposed to discharge their obligation in a just and fair manner. Any unfair activity on their part shall be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India vide Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 . More so when it is well-settled proposition of law that right of life and livelihood are the fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. More so when it is well-settled proposition of law that right of life and livelihood are the fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a case in Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33 , where right of continuance in service opposed on account of contractual/ad hoc appointment which was done for the period of six months. Case is entirely seems to be passed on different facts and circumstances. In the present case, petitioners have been continuing in service since last several years though the original engagement is for eleven months and courses still continue. 9. In the case of Pushpa Srivastava (supra) appointment was for six months and the scheme in which the incumbent was appointed seems came to an end. Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after end of contractual assignment no right accrue to the incumbent. It is well-settled proposition of law that judgment should be read in reference to context vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and others v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530 ; M/s. Amar Nath Om Parkash and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1985 SC 218 ; Rajpur Ruda Meha and others v. State of Gurajat, AIR 1980 SC 1707 ; C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1992) 4 SCC 363 ; Sarv Shramik Sangh, Bombay v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and another, (1993) 2 SCC 386 ; Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834 ; Mehboob Dawod Shaikh v. State of Maharastra, (2004) 2 SCC 362 ; ICICI Bank and another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, AIR 2005 SC 3315 ; M/s. Makhija Construction and Enggr. Pvt. Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and others, AIR 2005 SC 2499 ; and Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. and another, (2005) 7 SCC 234 . The case of Pushpa Srivastava (supra) seems to be on different facts and circumstances. In academic matters where teachers are engaged by the University may be on contractual basis under the scheme or course which is likely to continue for years to come, ordinarily such engagement should not be terminated in case the conduct and work of the person engaged is satisfactory. In academic matters where teachers are engaged by the University may be on contractual basis under the scheme or course which is likely to continue for years to come, ordinarily such engagement should not be terminated in case the conduct and work of the person engaged is satisfactory. It is not a case where work and conduct of the petitioners are not satisfactory rather it appears that petitioners have discharged their obligation with bright service record. 10. In view of above, we allow the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service for academic session 2013 and 2014 and pay him honorarium/salary as the case may be in accordance to Rules. Petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service till continuance of course or the scheme, as the case may be and be paid honorarium subject to satisfactory discharge of duties. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ——————