Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 891 (GUJ)

Pratikgiri Rameshgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat

2015-09-09

SONIA GOKANI

body2015
ORDER Sonia Gokani, J. 1. Since this group of petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners raise identical questions of facts and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 13151 of 2015 for convenience, which read as under: 2.1 An advertisement came to be issued on the website of the respondent No. 2 and leading newspapers in the month of July, 2014, for filling up vacant posts of Assistant Professors in Degree Engineering Colleges and Lecturers in Diploma Engineering Colleges in various branches across the State of Gujarat on contractual basis or till regularly selected candidates are available for recruitment, whichever is earlier. 2.2 The petitioner applied for the said post of Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement in Government Diploma Engineering College. The requisite qualification was First Class Graduate Degree or First Class Post Graduate Degree in Engineering in the concerned discipline. The petitioner since was possessing the requisite qualifications chose to apply for the said post pursuant to the advertisement. After due scrutiny of the application, the petitioner came to be selected as a Lecturer in the Government Diploma Engineering College on contractual basis. The petitioner was issued the appointment letter on October 20, 2014 stating therein that the petitioner is appointed on a fixed pay of Rs. 25,000/- per month for a period of 11 months or till regularly selected candidates through the respondent-GPSC are made available, whichever is earlier. 2.3 One of the conditions was to file an undertaking on a stamp paper stating that such appointment on the post of Lecturer was on a fixed pay for a period of 11 months or till regularly selected candidates through the procedure undertaken by the respondent-GPSC are made available, whichever is earlier and once 11 months' period is over, the services of the petitioner would automatically stand terminated and no further right shall remain of the petitioner in such service. 2.4 It is the say of the petitioner that there was no complaint against the petitioner, who has been serving with the concerned college with sincerity and dedication. The period of 11 months of contractual service is to end on September 19, 2015. 2.4 It is the say of the petitioner that there was no complaint against the petitioner, who has been serving with the concerned college with sincerity and dedication. The period of 11 months of contractual service is to end on September 19, 2015. It is the say of the petitioner that the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent-GPSC is going on and no regular selection has been made till date. There are many sanctioned posts lying vacant and in such view of the matter when the petitioner was conveyed orally that her services would not be extended once 11 months' period gets completed. She has approached this Court by way of filing present petition with the following reliefs: "17(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to terminate the services of the petitioner upon completion of 11 months period in service as ad hoc Lecturer in Government Diploma Engineering Colleges by referring to the appointment letter dated 20th October, 2014 as annexed at Annexure B to the present petition. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service as ad hoc Lecturer in Government Diploma Engineering Colleges till all sanctioned posts of Lecturer in Government Diploma Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat are filled in by the candidates to be selected by the GPSC through the process of regular selection. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from terminating the services of the Petitioner and thereupon, be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as continuing in service as Lecturer in Government Diploma Engineering Colleges pursuant to the letters of appointment dated October 20, 2014. (D) That Your Lordships may be pleased to award cost of proceedings. (E) Grant such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require in the interest of justice." 3. (D) That Your Lordships may be pleased to award cost of proceedings. (E) Grant such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require in the interest of justice." 3. At the time of issuing notice on August 17, 2015, Shri P.A. Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2014) 2 GLH 501 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and another v. Jain Sumit Rajeshbhai and others, rendered on February 18, 2015 while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1046 of 2014. 4. Shri P.A. Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the issue has been concluded by this Court in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), whereas the group of petitions pertaining to the appointment as ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnic Colleges came to be decided having identical issues of facts and law. He has relied upon the same and urged that the Letters Patent Appeal Bench in the case of Jain Sumit Rajeshbhai (supra) also confirmed the said view and, therefore, nothing requires to be further adjudicated upon. He has, therefore, urged that all these petitions since raise the identical questions of facts and law, they should be decided in similar manner and the petitioners are entitled to get similar orders as the orders which have been passed in favour of those petitioners. 5. Shri Swapneshwar Gautam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has fairly admitted that the said judgment was challenged before the Division Bench in the case of Jain Sumit Rajesh (supra) by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1046 of 2014 and allied matters. Before the Letters Patent Bench, since the period of 11 months was to come to end in February, 2014, the original petitioners apprehended their termination and the respondents therein had approached this Court by way of preferring writ petitions. The Court has drawn the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1046 of 2014 for its convenience and has upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. 6. The Court has drawn the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1046 of 2014 for its convenience and has upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. 6. Having thus heard both the sides and having also considered the factual matrix, in the present case, it can be noticed from record that in this group of petitions, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners applied for the concerned post in the Government Degree/Diploma Engineering Colleges and after following the due process of recruitment, they were appointed for the post of Lecturer (Diploma/Degree) for having possessed the requisite qualification as required in the said advertisement on fixed pay of Rs. 25,000/- and such contractual term is to end on September 19, 2015. 7. Apprehending the termination at the end of 11 months' period, on the ground that no candidate is available pursuant to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent-GPSC which is not yet over, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly placed employees were availed the benefit by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), wherein the Court held that the very existence of the contractual/temporary/ad-hoc appointments for a long period of time would go to establish that there is a genuine requirement of filling up such posts on regular basis. The frequent or continuous adhocism ought not to be resorted to. 8. It would be profitable to regurgitate relevant observations and findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rendered in the case of Pradeep Navinbhai Patel (supra), which read as under: "18. The principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), to the effect that ad-hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other ad-hoc or temporary employees, has not been touched by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). It is submitted that this principle of law still prevails. Referring to paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), learned Senior Counsel has contended that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that those principles run counter to this decision, shall no longer be considered as precedents. It is submitted that this principle of law still prevails. Referring to paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), learned Senior Counsel has contended that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that those principles run counter to this decision, shall no longer be considered as precedents. The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), is regarding the legality, or otherwise, of temporary or casual workers or daily wagers against the posts where they have been working for a long period of time. The Supreme Court has considered various modes of appointments terming some appointments as irregular ones and others as illegal ones and has laid down principles of law regarding such appointments. These principles would not be relevant to the case in hand which is regarding ad-hoc employees being replaced by other ad-hoc employees. 19. It is contended that the judgment in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (Supra.), there is a reference to the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), in paragraph-67, with regard to regularization of the services of temporary employees. In that context, paragraph-26 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been reproduced in this judgment, wherein paragraph-50 State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been overruled. 20. Similarly, in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.), there is a reference to the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), in the context of regularization. The Supreme Court has held in this judgment that the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), does not lay down the correct law regarding invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, to enable the employees to claim permanency or regularization in service, though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. It is submitted that the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been overruled in its entirety is, therefore, not correct. It is submitted that the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been overruled in its entirety is, therefore, not correct. The principle of law that an ad-hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc employee has not been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), what has been overruled is only the principle of law laid down in paragraph-50 of the judgment in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), and not the judgment as a whole. 21. This Court has heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.M. Devnani and Mr. Vishal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the State Government and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the Gujarat Public Service Commission, at length and considered the material on record as well as the submissions advanced at the Bar. 22. It is not disputed that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, as required by the GPSC. However, the fact remains that at the relevant period of time when the petitioners came to be appointed, no regularly selected candidates by the GPSC were available to fill up the said posts. Moreover, the GPSC had not received any requisition from the State Government for regular recruitment. The State Government, therefore, resorted to the practice of issuing an advertisement for filling up the said posts on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till the regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. It may be noted that the Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment dated 07.09.2011, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and connected matters, was dealing with an identical situation. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has directed the State Government to take steps to fill up the remaining 1106 vacant posts and any other vacancies that may have arisen of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics. The State Government was directed to forward its requisition to the GPSC on an earlier date. The requisition pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench has been sent only on 07.08.2013, after almost two years. 23. The State Government was directed to forward its requisition to the GPSC on an earlier date. The requisition pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench has been sent only on 07.08.2013, after almost two years. 23. As noted above, in the intervening period after the passing of the judgment by the Division Bench, and the requisition sent by the State Government to the GPSC, the State Government issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till regularly selected candidates are available. It is pursuant to this advertisement in the month of September, 2013, that the petitioners have been appointed. It is an admitted position that as of date, no regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available to replace the petitioners. The Government has, therefore, decided to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees, on the same terms and conditions as the petitioners; meaning thereby that temporary/ad-hoc employees such as the petitioners are sought to be replaced by another set of temporary/ad-hoc employees, instead of by regularly selected candidates. 24. It may be made clear, at this stage, that the appointment of the petitioners, being of a contractual nature, does not confer any right upon them to the posts against which they have been appointed, even though they may be vacant posts. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has observed as below: 47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. 25. Keeping this position of law in mind, it may be noticed that in the present case, the petitioners are not seeking regularization or confirmation against the posts they are occupying on a contractual/temporary basis. It has been conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they have no permanent right against these posts. That the petitioners have not claimed any right to continue in service once regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. The scope of this petitions, therefore, is narrowed down to the extent that the petitioners have challenged the action of the State Government in seeking to terminate their services in order to replace them with another set of ad-hoc/temporary/contractual employees, whose terms and conditions would be identical to those of the petitioners. The issue for determination before this Court would be whether the action of the State Government in replacing the petitioners who are temporary employees by another set of temporary employees, is sustainable in law, or not. 26. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has referred to the principles of law laid down by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.). The relevant quotations from the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "25. This Court then concluded in paras 45 to 49: (SCC p.152) "45. 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 employee 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. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 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. 48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. 49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization 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." 26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here -can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Singh is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent." (emphasis supplied) 27. It may be noted that in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has not interfered with, or diluted the principles of law, enunciated in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.) to the effect that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, but must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, so as to avoid arbitrariness on the part of the appointing authority. The Constitution Bench did not agree with the directions made in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), as contained in paragraph-50 of the said judgment, regarding a Scheme for regularization of the services of temporary employees to be prepared by the State Government. The principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), regarding ad-hoc appointees, as reproduced in paragraph-25 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has not been interfered with by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. The principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), regarding ad-hoc appointees, as reproduced in paragraph-25 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has not been interfered with by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). Hence, the principle of law that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, still holds good. The appointing authority, in this case the State Government, must resort to the procedure of appointing regularly selected candidates. This process, though underway, will take almost a year for completion, if not more. There is no valid reason for the State Government to bring in another batch of temporary employees by terminating the services of the petitioners by resorting to continued ad-hoc appointments. 28. This Court has carefully perused the judgments in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (2) and others (Supra.) and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.) as well as the judgment in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (Supra.) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.). In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (2) and others (Supra.), a reference was made to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the issue whether employees appointed by the State or its instrumentalities on temporary or casual basis, or on daily-wage, have a right to approach the High Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing that they may be made permanent or absorbed in the posts on which they are working. In paragraph-26 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court did not approve of the principles of law laid down in paragraph-50 of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), to the extent that directions issued to the States to prepare a scheme for regularization of the temporary or casual or daily-wage workers. The reference to the Constitution Bench was regarding regularization of such employees and to that extent the principles of law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), to the extent that directions issued to the States to prepare a scheme for regularization of the temporary or casual or daily-wage workers. The reference to the Constitution Bench was regarding regularization of such employees and to that extent the principles of law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), have been overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), in paragraph-50 regarding touching upon the regularization of temporary/casual workers and daily-wagers have been overruled. However, the principle of law enunciated in the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), that ad-hoc employees should not be replaced by another ad-hoc employees has not been overruled. The judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), as a whole, has not been overruled and the principles of law laid down to the effect that ad-hoc employees should not be replaced by other ad-hoc employees still holds good. 29. In Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (Supra.), a reference is made to State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), only with regard to regularization of the services of temporary employees and paragraph-26 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been reproduced. 30. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.), a reference to State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), has been made in the context of regularization only. Moreover, both the judgments in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (Supra.) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (Supra.) are of three and two Hon'ble Judges, respectively, whereas the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), has been rendered by five Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. In paragraph-54 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has held as below: "54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." 31. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has held as below: "54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." 31. The principles settled in the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), are those pertaining to regularization of temporary/casual/daily-wage workers. Having regard to the above, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the principle of law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.), that ad-hoc employees ought not to be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees, but only by regularly selected candidates, has not been diluted and still holds good. 32. A similar view has been taken by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 07.09.2011, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010, and connected matters. When the appeals were being heard, initially, the Division Bench passed an interim order dated 24.03.2011, whereby it was directed that till the posts are filled up by regularly selected candidates, the Assistant Professors/Lecturers be not disturbed. These directions have attained finality in the final judgment dated 07.09.2011. While disposing of all the Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench has made it clear that till regular appointments are made, the ad-hoc Lecturers/Assistant Professors, who were the respondents therein would be continued. The State Government was directed to continue the interim arrangement, as ordered by the Division Bench in its order dated 24.03.2011. This judgment has attained finality, as there is no further challenge to it. It has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that the State Government has not only accepted the judgment, but has also implemented it. The ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who were before the Division Bench in those cases were continued and are still continuing, till such time as regularly selected candidates are not available. It has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders that the State Government has not only accepted the judgment, but has also implemented it. The ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who were before the Division Bench in those cases were continued and are still continuing, till such time as regularly selected candidates are not available. Even while reiterating that the petitioners cannot have any claim to the posts after the regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available, this Court fails to understand why the State Government, which has implemented the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of identically situated Assistant Professors/Lecturers, has once again resorted to the same practice that was disapproved by the Division Bench earlier. The very existence of contractual/temporary/ad-hoc appointments for a long period of time would go to show that there is a genuine requirement for filing up the posts on a regular basis. The Constitutional Scheme of Public appointments, as has been expounded in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.), mandates that appointments to regular posts should be made by following the proper procedure. Frequent or continuous resort to ad-hocism ought not be made in the interest of the State, Institution, or, in the present case, the academic future of the students. Making appointments of Assistant Professors/Lecturers on ad-hoc basis for a term of eleven months and thereafter replacing them with another set of ad-hoc Assistant Professors/Lecturers, again for a short period of eleven months, and to continue this process over and over again until regularly selected candidates are available, would definitely be detrimental to the interest of the students. This is an aspect that deserves consideration. The object of appointment of Assistant Professors/Lecturers is to teach the students of Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics. If a method is resorted to that would undermine the continuity of the studies of the students and, thereby, lower the quality of education that they receive, it would fail to have any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Besides this, the services of the petitioners are sought to be terminated during mid-term, which would further adversely affect the studies of the students. 33. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the GPSC that the requisition for filling up regular posts has come from the State Government on 07.08.2013. Besides this, the services of the petitioners are sought to be terminated during mid-term, which would further adversely affect the studies of the students. 33. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the GPSC that the requisition for filling up regular posts has come from the State Government on 07.08.2013. The procedure for regular recruitment is still underway and, as per the submissions made by Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the GPSC, it may take another 10 to 12 months to complete the same. It may be true that the petitioners do not have any permanent right to the posts that they are occupying on ad-hoc basis; however, it is difficult to understand what rational purpose would be served in terminating the services of the petitioners and engaging fresh ad-hoc persons for eleven months. Such action would be in contradiction to the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others (Supra.) as quoted in the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (Supra.). Moreover, it would lead to multifarious litigation, as is already the case. 34. As has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, the challenge in the present petitions is limited only to the extent of the termination of the services of the petitioner to make way for another set of ad-hoc employees. It does not extend to those Assistant Professors/Lecturers, who may have been appointed in the Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.08.2013, or to any other vacant posts. 35. Accordingly, as a cumulative effect of the above discussion and for reasons stated hereinabove, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 07.09.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and connected matters, the petitions are partly-allowed to the extent that the services of the petitioners as Assistant Professors/Lecturers on temporary/contractual basis in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics shall not be terminated, till regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available. 36. It is clarified that this judgment shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after the regularly selected candidates through the GPSC are available." 9. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri and A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) held as under: "4. 36. It is clarified that this judgment shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after the regularly selected candidates through the GPSC are available." 9. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri and A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) held as under: "4. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant No. 2-Commissioner of Technical Education, issued an advertisement on his Website for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, on contractual basis, for a fixed period of eleven months or till regularly selected candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC, for short), are available, whichever is earlier. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondents herein applied for the said posts. As they possess the requisite qualifications for the said posts, they were appointed as Assistant Professors/Lecturers by issuing appointment orders of various dates. The appointment orders of the respondents herein are identical in all cases and contain the same terms and conditions. As per condition No. 1 of the appointment letters, the period of appointment was for eleven months or till the availability of regularly selected candidates by the GPSC. 4.1. In the present cases, the period of eleven months was to come to an end in the month of February, 2014. Apprehending the termination of their services and before the completion of the period of eleven months, the respondents herein approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. By an order dated 20.01.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 709/2014 and connected matters (and similar orders in other petitions), this Court, following the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986/2010 and allied matters, protected the petitioners by way of an ad-interim arrangement to the effect that the service conditions of the respondents would not be altered on the ground that their contract has come to an end. This arrangement was to continue till further orders. The Court also made it clear that this order would not confer any right upon the respondents. This arrangement was to continue till further orders. The Court also made it clear that this order would not confer any right upon the respondents. It may be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government issued a fresh advertisement on 20.01.2014, for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics, again for a period of eleven months, on terms and conditions identical to the cases of the respondents before this Court. 4.2. The grievance of the respondents in the writ petition was that they were appointed for a period of eleven months on contractual/ad-hoc basis, therefore, till such time as regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are not available, their services ought not to be terminated by appointing other Assistant Professors/Lecturers on contractual/ad-hoc basis, on the same terms and conditions. Therefore, the respondents filed petition being Special Civil application No. 682 of 2014 before this court. This Court vide impugned order partly allowed the said petition. Hence, these appeals. 5. Mr. Shukla and Mr. Patel, Learned AGPs for the appellants have jointly submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in passing the impugned judgment and order by following the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 2986 of 2010. It is the next contention of learned AGPs for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellants herein have no powers to extend the time limit of the contract which came to an end on 01.02.2014 as in view of the provisions laid down in the Gujarat Public Service Commission (Exemption From Consultation) Regulations, 1960 only GPSC had power and right to filled upon the posts in question. 5.1. By making such submission, learned AGPs for the appellants urged that this Court may allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of the leaned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the material available on record has passed the impugned judgment and orders. Therefore, he urged that this Court may dismiss the present appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Therefore, he urged that this Court may dismiss the present appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. We have also perused the impugned judgment and orders of the learned Singe Judge and found that the learned Single Judge has, for cogent reasons, partly allowed the writ petitions. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly followed the decision dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench passed in Letter Patent Appeal No. 2986 of 2010 and connected matter and has rightly held that the service of the petitioners-respondents herein shall not be terminated till regularly selected candidate by the GPSC are available. In our view, the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge is squarely covers the issue involved in these matters. Further, in our view, an ad-hoc employees ought not to be replaced by another ad-hoc employee, but only by regularly selected candidates. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and orders. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that the terms and conditions of the service of the respondents will remain the same and in future the respondents will not be entitled to claim for continuation of their services." 10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above cited decisions, all these petitions are partly allowed to the extent that the services of the petitioners as lecturers on temporary/contractual basis in the concerned Government college shall not be terminated till regularly selected candidates by the respondent-GPSC are made available. 11. It is further clarified that the aforesaid arrangement shall not confer any right upon the petitioners to the posts on which they are working, after regularly selected candidates through the respondent-GPSC are appointed. It is also made clear that the terms and conditions of the petitioners will remain the same and in future, the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim of continuation of their service. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms. Direct Service is permitted.